508
Japan tried to build an operating system for the entire world, then the US government intervened
(www.xda-developers.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
508 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87418 readers
3499 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"Capitalism breeds innovation."
Also capitalism:
lemmings blaming everything on capitalism
also lemmings: scrolling on their apple iphone that also had a gui decades ahead of its time in the 80s
Competition breeds innovation. Commercial pressure can be one source of such competition, but isn't the only one.
Capitalism abhors competition. It breeds innovation only if it serves to eliminate competition.
Absolutely correct, Capitalism will incentivize innovation only as long as it's profitable to do so. Once a company becomes a dominant player in their industry, innovation actually becomes largely unprofitable.
We can see this play out all the time, this is why industry giants almost never try to outcompete smaller start ups by innovating their products and services, instead, they either crush them out of the market via a bunch of different methods. Or they just buy them out, kill off their IP, or if it's way better, they just brand it as their own, and usually fire most of the old staff.
In a Capitalist system, this actually creates a whole new incentive structure where start ups will try to grow as fast as possible with the sole intention of getting bought out by an industry titan, making the founders of the start up filthy rich.
One of the biggest lie to keep the current system in place.
Private corporations parasite themselves into R&D paid for by the government and act like they invented the fire again.
The Internet is built on FOSS and got captured to be sold back to us.
Capitalism breeds innovation just like people leave their partner when they finally have enough to be abused.
Capitalism breeds protectionism.
No this was capitalism in action. Capitalism bred the innovation in TRON.
Governments getting involved and putting their thumb on the scales to control the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
did you read the article? TRON was heavily backed by the japanese government.
Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.
South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.
The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that's not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.
Say the line!!
"That isn't REAL captialism"
Lmao
Just like the dumbasses say "the Soviet Union wasn't REAL communism"?
Except I'm correct. A government implementing protectionist policies to control economic sectors is not capitalist.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You're thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you're describing as "free-markets" I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we're being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn't really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I agree with this without any reservations.
I take exception with "always". In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I'd probably agree if you changed your word to "frequently" though.
fair - I agree ;)
Except I never said you were factually incorrect, since that seems to be the most important thing for you to get out of this exchange.
It is capitalism. It's all part of the system.
Government tipping the scales to help their capitalist mates seems to be exactly how capitalism works.
And North Korea is definitely a democratic republic 🙄🙄