🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@JonKramer

Of course there is a barrier to entry when it comes to work... Your success as a worker financially is largerly dependent on your education or skills. Aquiring those skills costs money.. there is a huge barrier of entry for those starting out in life with no skills or money and must compete with others int he labour force to grow their "brand" so they can make more money as they advance as a worker. Education for example (or other forms of training) is a huge barrier.

@ech @trinsec

@HeavenlyPossum @trinsec

Because the system is specifically designed such that multiple owners cant collaborate in large numbers.

If you want to start a company that has more than a few owners then it would be a corperation since other types of companies have severly limited numbers of owners.

In a corporation the owners must be isolated fromt he board and the board somewhat isolated from day-to-day operations. One of the reasons to isolate the owners from what happens in their own company is specifically so they cant collaborate and manipulate prices within the company.

@JonKramer

Well no.. all you need is enough people collaborating to artificially tilt the market, it doesnt have to be an exclusive contract.

This is why anti-trust isnt limited to company coalitions that require companies to join (which dont exist anyway)... even just two companies collaborating to fix price is illegal... just as even two people collaborting in a union should be.

@HeavenlyPossum @trinsec

@HeavenlyPossum @trinsec

If you want to argue that way then fine, id be forced to oppose antitrust laws if I were to be convinced to support unions. Since as you say they should be free to collaborate

@HeavenlyPossum @trinsec @JonKramer

No not at all this has nothibg to do with exclusive contracts

@AmpBenzScientist Its not the physical mechanisms that enable immutability that is the problem, there are tons of good approaches there. The issue is more around the elegance of the whole process (namely mutate-and-copy paradigms)

@postmodern Oh I agree, the handling of immutability has been less than elegant since the get go.. but its not really a ruby problem.. no OO language handles it all that well to be honest.

@postmodern indeed they do. I mean most languages attempt to handle the immutable problem in one way or another... I find most very lacking or ugly.

@modrobert Im not sure i agree there either. Non-oo coding becomes a mess unless you employ class-like organization (structs or something) in which case your right back to the same immutability/mutability problem

Ya know the more I reflect on the languages I know the more I realize that outside of functional languages none of them really handle immutability well.

Consider that you want most of your objects to be immutable most of the time. Thats all well and good till you realize you want to be able to edit the objects in such a way that it creates duplicates that have some data changed but are likewise immutable.

This tends to stop working, almost entierly, once you get into subclassing. If you parent class has a method that returns a copy of itself with some data modified, this will break in children classes, since you want children classes to return instances of itself, not its parent.

Its not that you cant fix that, but the code gets very ugly very quickly. Generally you are forced to let the code handling the classes do the copying and editing itself, but that is pretty ugly too.

I have had this pattern problem in almost every OO language i messed with, Java, Ruby, Python, etc.

#Ruby #Python #Java #Programming #CS

My god... #Ruby 's handling of immutability is absolutely horrific... I used to like ruby but I am coming to hate it real fast the more I use it...