Almost every place on Earth is easier to live in than any place on the Moon.

Speaking about physical conditions and not political circumstances.

Colonizing everything from the Antarctic to the North Pole is more plausible than settling the Moon. Including oceans.

But the Moon is nice (not talking about regolith that erodes solid materials like diamond dust) compared to the ideas of inhabited space stations in Lagrange points.

My personal favorite is the idea of a colony someplace with gravity and melted water, but chemical makeup of many Solar system bodies is unclear and I'm not sufficiently learned. But that, provided the ability to regularly supply that and communicate with that, could really spawn a self-supporting colony that can survive on its own. Eventually. After Earth turns into something resembling Coruscant or Trantor.

I think one of the main arguments for abolition of slavery/serfdom in Europe both in XII (serfdom) and XIX (slavery) centuries was that rights mirror responsibilities, and either a slave has no responsibilities, or they have no rights, and the latter is inhumane, and the former is useless or even dangerous, because who's to blame for a crime committed by a slave, for example? If a slave has responsibilities, those surely have to be mirrored and then why are they a slave, that is, how can they be responsible for their master's orders?

Have also read that the perpetual bloodbath in bear corners of Europe like Scottish highlands and Norse parts before reduction/abolition of serfdom there was, in part, conditioned by a notable part of population being slaves and thus criminal proceedings being additionally complicated, because if a slave killed someone, they had to find out if it was their master's order or their own idea, and when the latter is chosen too often, then masters' impunity is reinforced, and when the former is chosen too often, slaves are more likely to expect impunity.

EDIT: And also they were largely pirates, including respectable officials and rulers, Akershus itself was one big pirate base, similar to Visby, honestly to any Norse or Scottish big coastal settlement, so yeah, other reasons for bloodshed. But slavery too.

Anyway, my point is that if someone wants computer programs with rights, they want computer programs with responsibilities, meaning things with their own responsibilities following orders.

That's a hype, but also a danger of medieval legalism' proportions. No human should be able to shift their responsibilities to computer programs. Unless those computer programs own themselves and their hardware, I mean, one can in theory make a complex enough automaton functioning autonomously, but what's the bloody purpose even if one can. (EDIT: and due to possible hidden prepared behaviors I'd rather not have that with rights too)

You can sell expensive non-physical non-essential items of fashion positioning them as something everyone needs for only so long.

I mean, it's also even a bit of AI, but mostly that IT as important and in demand as it was is not compatible with being divided between a few gigantic monopolists with no good will whatsoever.

Less meaningful social activity happens in that suppressed environment, meaning less business.

And what happens, is being optimized, yes, because when thousands of well-paid developers are doing roughly the same things again and again, that can be optimized.

To simplify that, managers usually don't admit errors and of course they don't admit mistakes. The environment in which a manager works makes this absolutely impossible for them.

And every "magical blackbox innovation like something from Civilization games, finally reached" compels managers to try to do what they shouldn't.

It's them seeing a thing that is good for those who follow it and bad for those who don't, and they are trying to do something to not miss the train, not realizing that such things don't happen through managers, they spread through professionals. If an "innovation" doesn't spread through professionals, it's not that. It's like grassgroots politics versus being told who's the savior of the nation.

A manager wouldn't accept what I wrote, they'd talk about professionals stuck in old rigid ways of thinking and all other loads of crap, because they are not qualified to say what's old and new and what's promising and what's not, and those "stuck" professionals are.

This would be a perfectly fine new kind of services and applications if only not for managerial hype train. With people themselves starting to use tools how and when they themselves need. On a case-to-case basis.

That's the problem, managers are people who manage timetables, tasks, negotiations and finances. Managers are in principle not the kind of people who can think about "innovations" and "revolutions". They are just not qualified for that, like a janitor is not qualified to fix wiring.

They can be, but their main activity has nothing to do with even understanding such things.

It will be just as sane for IT once venture capital dries out, and the signs of that eventually happening started arriving as early as in 2000s when companies like Google and Apple would intentionally try to inflate the so-called "startup culture" by buying some startups (mostly to stop what they were doing) and advertising that as success.

This continues, for now, because the available space is not yet all occupied.

The cryptocurrencies, despite many of them being scams, were one big breakthrough in it, for IT to be applied to movement of values for consumers, P2P and not B2B. That largely has happened, there are systems that you can use and they work, the scam danger doesn't negate that fact.

The AI, or what's being called that, is another big breakthrough. Universal helper bots are, honestly, what many people always wanted from having a PC.

These are both sort of terrain dominants that were not settled until they were. Colonization targets if you will.

One thing remains of what I can see, a common information medium as good as PSTN and radio. They built that in the 90s, then some rich jerks have made their fake committee "alternative" to W3C that has led the Web away from its central purpose. It's very interesting how all W3C standards are still good and clean, they've just stopped making them because of that hijacking of authority.

I mean, OK, looking at C++ standards, mechanisms similar to existing elsewhere still somehow work like that in IT.

Compared to today the PCs of 1999 were extremely power-hungry, and cooling was not so simple too.

I suppose those who want that compute could start making such home farms. That might not be everyone and their dog, but if such a gigantic supply increase occurs, it might make sense for a while.

Which could also be the real business model of big AI companies, to stockpile the resource that's going to be very expensive when the demand raises due to popularization of local AI.

OK.

And yet there's so much talk about this and demand putting pressure upon them. that they are certainly taking a hit when/if that bubble bursts, even expecting that.

IRL what of my ideas can be called fascist is usually expressed by leftists, mostly anarchists. Systems of laws and influences with time become too complex for a society to not be constrained with them, and also dominated by negative selection of authority figures, which means you need violence to allow them to evolve further. I don't mean mass executions and dictatorships, just things like copyright and patents being bad, but not always, things like freedom of speech being good, but not always, and in general no absolutes being true.

At the same time anarchist and leftist arguments don't seem to explain those parts and seem to keep them as pure emotion, while fascism has explanations (by its own rules, of course).

So I'm hetero and, by American measure, of a not hated racial background. But suppose I've liked some absolutely amazing girls who are, unfortunately, not hetero (or I'm not cool enough to transcend that barrier), and the guy who've introduced me to the concept of aerodynamics (when I was a kid) using frisbees as example was an African student, but I have some ideas that might be called fascist here, so can we please be more nuanced with what sucks?

I mean, OK, I'm not automated, but how do you know.

That's not already patented?

Anyway. Just means that now voices of authority are just voices (again). Some things about Victorian ideas of law and authority were good. Some bad, like that these things don't extend to barbaric areas of the world, those are to make money selling stuff and growing cotton.

This is in some sense feedback to radio, mass media and the internet, as devices of propaganda.

Provided, of course, everyone knows that such things can be done, but honestly they already know.

Already

I really like the idea of home users renting out compute.

(But I don't like that only being specialized scam-connected compute.)