We have gravitational evidence. We can only ever infer the existence of anything. An example of this is we didn’t actually see the Higgs Boson we just deduced it’s existence from the cascade of interactions that happens when particles collide. Similarly we can deduce from the gravitational evidence that dark matter exists.
Just because something seemingly doesn’t interact with EM fields doesn’t mean it isn’t there, it’s just something that only really interacts with the rest of the universe on a gravitational level.
You make the patents too easy to get and it fucks the little guy over as the big corps hoover up all the ideas. You make them difficult or impossible to get then that also benefits the big guys over the little guys as they will just steal people’s ideas and produce them for cheaper with their existing infrastructure which creates an even bigger monopoly.
There is a sweet spot that society is trying to reach. It’s imperfect like any system but it’s far far better than having no system.
You’ve not even considered that in order to get a patent granted you have to disclose your invention to the public which stops big corporations hoarding too many trade secrets.
All in all, the idea that patents shouldn’t exist benefits nobody except the large corporations. Say goodbye to start ups growing in size if that is the case.
But it is visible, it’s visible in terms of gravitational effects. We can “see” the effects of dark matter. That is evidence specifically for dark matter, i.e. matter that is very hard or impossible to detect via the electromagnetic spectrum but is observable through gravity.
Dark matter is the explanation, the question is more what form does it take.
It just takes a bit of acknowledgement that actually the EM spectrum is not the only way to view the universe. In fact it’s just one of four (maybe five) fundamental forces. We’re just used to that being the default for seeing because it’s how we physically see. It’s an anthropocentric bias to say something doesn’t exist because we can’t view it via EM radiation despite the fact gravity is clearly showing it to us.
You could use your logic to argue against the existence of black holes. We don’t see them by definition but they are most certainly there.
I would argue that Wikipedia is wrong or misguided. There is no serious debate about whether or not dark matter exists. I also think you’ve completely missed the point of my argument regarding the EM field just being only one way to detect the existence of things.
I think you’ve gone completely off the rails here. You said everyone should be free to just do the job they want. I pointed out that perhaps what people want to do wouldn’t match up with what actually needs to be done. You started banging on about squirrels rather than admit that what I said is actually probably the case.
I’ve never denied humans aren’t in intense competition with each other. I just don’t think it’s relevant to point to squirrels as an example of how humans should work, they clearly are very different from us.
We don’t have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that’s why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don’t think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.
But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.
I’ve already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.
So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you’re asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.
Geopolitical, as in a combination of political, cultural and geographical.
I don’t think noting the problem is partially political is enough to say it’s easily solveable.
I think we’re coming at this from a different philosophy, you see politics as something that is easily changeable, I see it as a product of environmental and cultural positions. Changing the entire world’s politics is a nigh on impossible task.
You see geopolitics as a variable, I see it as a constraint on the actual variables.
Why does investment entitle people to live off said thing? That’s because there are agreements between the parties involved. If I want to start a business and need seed money I willingly enter a contract with investors just as they willingly risk their investment capital.
Of course they are more efficient, nobody sets up co operatives. If they were a more efficient way of running a business more people would do it.
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
bro pls (mander.xyz)
Just fuck me up fam (sh.itjust.works)
Like finding gold during your work day. (i.imgflip.com)
and where did that bring you? (lemmy.ml)
Back to Ted