"Crypto" is not a single entity! What hasn't figured this out yet is crypto markets, collectively — which were rewarding projects based on hype, not value provided to users. But there are some cases where people are building with real users in mind. Arweave and Uniswap come to mind.
I didn't feel like writing a novel that accounted for every edge case and I knew if my comment got any traction, folks like you would show up passionately pointing out the details I omitted or glossed over. Here we are.
You are correct, there are exceptions. You are correct, crypto is not a single entity. defi in particular is an area where there are a lot of products catering to real user needs as they're marketing to people who already own crypto. And for them, whether they need a db or not is irrelevant. Those users demand decentralized products, so if they want to serve them, they really don't have a choice. Uniswap would be committing suicide by deciding to use a db at this point.
I have mixed feelings about unions. On one hand – should workers be able to associate freely and bargain collectively against employers? Yes! But, should some groups of workers be able to impose on everyone that they must join their association in order to be a worker at X company, or an actor, or something? No, I don't see why.
> But, should some groups of workers be able to impose on everyone that they must join their association in order to be a worker at X company, or an actor, or something? No, I don't see why.
We then get into:
> In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods (such as public roads or public library), or services of a communal nature do not pay for them[1] or under-pay. Free riders are a problem because while not paying for the good (either directly through fees or tolls or indirectly through taxes), they may continue to access or consume it. Thus, the good may be under-produced, overused or degraded.[2] Additionally, it has been shown that despite evidence that people tend to be cooperative by nature, the presence of free-riders cause this prosocial behaviour to deteriorate, perpetuating the free-rider problem.[3]
Exactly! If conditions are so bad in a company that 99% of it's workers immediately sign on to a union then that means something very different than when you can only get 51% of workers to eventually sign on.
Collective bargaining is a escape valve against shit employers for employees that don't have a lot of options. A standing union with mandated membership and support from laws and regulations very easily becomes something far more twisted.
Only management should be able to impose their will on employees and should be able to do so without competition. On the job, and during their “free-time”.
More seriously, imagine where not everyone is required to be in the union and think about how easy it then becomes for management to manipulate the environment to the detriment of union employees until the union is wiped out.
