yeah, no, that’s not how this works, Ms. Kim. The time for talking has passed long ago. you’re the perfect postersoldier for this, yet you refuse to be it. you’re stuck in this half butted state of “want, but can’t really” perpetually fighting for the very State that wants to keep you off his back.
You want to end the war, so let’s end the ■■■■■■■ war once and for all. it’s not rocket science!
first step is Escalation. stop giving a damn about what the empires tell you, because all they want is to keep you far away from where the war should wage. these meaningless conflicts in lowsec achieve nothing for the greater good, which should be destroying the federation, right?
And you know where all the frogs live? in federation space, in highsec! not lowsec. highsec! all this mumbo jumbo about doing things for the State is meaningless, because it doesn’t get the job done anyway. I don’t care about anything but finding working solutions for a problem, the rest is irrelevant, Ms. Kim! You’ve presented a problem, so i figure out working solutions and steps towards the goal! Kill The Frogs! And if you too want to see the Federation destroyed, then all that should matter is achieving it! by any means necessary
so… 50 pods a week, plus the naturally occuring noise it will cause in frogspace. what’s my sallary? or compensation? motivation? call it whatever you want, as long as it gets people to work towards the goal, i don’t give a damn! and you shouldn’t either!
Playing dumb now, goon? Fine, I’ll give you explanation like for a child.
THIS IS NOT DISCUSSION ABOUT ME, and I don’t have to answer questions about me here.
When people are critical about what I say, I always give them proper and polite response. But if they instead of being critical start insulting me or spreading lies, trying to discuss my person instead of what I tell them, I usually tell them to go shove it back their . And drop any polite stance towards them.
When people falsely claim to be critical and dare to accuse me in anything instead of criticizing, but before that were caught lying about me, I simply diss all their responses as lies, because I don’t have time to deal with that crap.
Nor I am obliged to defend myself before some forum trolls, who have little to no authority. That’s not a freaking tribunal, and not people who I care. If a respectful or a significant person will ask me a question if I did any crime or not, I will give a polite answer. If a troll will come with that - you already know how I answer to you.
I value my unsullied honor and reputation, so if you dare to come with any crap and slanders at me, prepare yourself being proverbially stomped down, or not only proverbially, if I’ll see an opportunity in space. I will never forget any slander about me, and once you step on this path, I will keep stomping you down.
Your words have no power over me. When trolls accuse me in something without even trying to prove, I again can simply diss it out without proof again just like lies, because it is a word-vs-word situation, and they as accuser failed to proof their words. In all legal terms you aren’t guilty, unless proven otherwise, so I just say they bark lies and tell them to shut it. I don’t have to defend myself again bare trolls slanders, I can only say they are a lie, and my word will be more powerful then their, by three reasons:
a) merit of my word alone: my honor and reputation are better than their, and I am known as a person who can’t stand lies;
b) legal procedure: again, it’s a duty of accuser to bring proof, not defendant; no proof = no valid accusation;
c) source of my word and their: it’s pretty obvious, that I know about my person way more than any of these forum trolls (regarding accusations, that can’t be verified by one mean or another, for example when they dare to say something about my motives, thoughts, desires, and so on).
Though, I probably should have answered on all this with only two reasons:
That’s not the place for bringing any accusations against me (stop derailing and trolling pls)
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
And the last thing I want to tell to you and all likes of you, coming with such questions at me: SHOO !!
Mmmhm. Whatever, Di. Now scurry along and be a good little rabid merc in the pendulum games, won’t you? After all, there’s people to kill who won’t stay dead, and systems to take that won’t stay took. You’re accomplishing so much out there, running through the maze again and again like a good little rat, aren’t you?
Money is just a medium of exchange, something that facilitates transactions.
But do not prevent entry so they do not grant monopoly status let alone ensure it.
Maybe…if you assume consumers are mindless drones who are incapable of making decisions.
Lots of unfounded speculation and assumption in there. “Let me assume away all our objections…see, now the dominant firm is a monopoly…” And never mind that it does not prevent entry.
Every megacorporation started out small. Innovation destroys the old and replaces it with the new.
Really? How often do you put the horse before your cart? When you get that money why are firms cozying up to the biggest bully on the block? Because that bully has the power. With the Caldari these businesses are the State a particularly disturbing combination.
This is rather amusing given your massive list of assumptions.
“Assume I am the dominant firm and have lots of money for marketing and espioniage…”
“Assume consumers are unthinking and will keep buying a product no matter what…”
“Assume that I can shut down their production facilities to save money while somehow meeting the increased demand…”
Why not just simplify things: “Assume the firm is a monopolist, therefore the firm is a monopolist. No other explanation needed.”
Hang on a sec now. You keep saying I’m not allowing for entry, but you don’t address the fact that I pointed out the barrier to entry: it takes money.
You also make a big deal about ‘you assume a dominant market position’, completely ignoring that all of this is predicated on the earlier statement that eventually, someone gets a lead in profits and market share, and uses that as a stepping stone to doing all of this.
As for ‘consumers are unthinking’… research shows that consumers, just like everyone else, fall into the trap of habitual behavior. You buy Quafe because you’ve always bought Quafe. Starsi came out with a new formula? Pfft. You’re a Quafe drinker. Everyone knows Quafe’s better. You’re not gonna waste your money on that swill the other guy’s pushing now.
Yeah, consumer behavior, just like the rest of human behavior, tends toward laziness and lack of critical examination except when there’s some sudden shock to the environment that shakes them out of their rut.
Next, let’s look at ‘assume I can shut down their production facilities to save money while somehow meeting increased demand’. This one’s laughably easy.
It is cheaper, in almost all circumstances, to maintain and expand one facility for production, rather than two. Two means duplicating all of the attendant systems: maintenance, site management, security, etc etc. Unless there is a significant cost increase involved in transportation from a single, central location, it’s going to be cheaper to not have to maintain a second facility. That’s just how the economics work.
Yes, indeed. This is why voting processes should be restrained by rules.
Pure democracy can quite easily degenerate into mob rule. But note that despising an entire group for a failing such as this is itself illogical. What about those who did not vote in favor of such acts. Another problem with democracy is that it is a collective decision making process where the winners determine the outcome over the objections of those on the other side. To decry all Gallenteans for the flaws in their collective decision making processes (and while ignoring those in your own collective decision making processes) is to suggest a disturbing lack of self-awareness.
I’ve not claimed the Tribal Council is perfect. It’s not. You want a simple analysis of the cause of its imperfection?
There’s people involved.
If there are people involved, it won’t be perfect. Doesn’t matter if the people are involved in making the decisions, or just executing the decisions, or designing the system, or even just designing the AI and automated systems that designed and programmed the drones that made the decisions. There’s people involved, your process is fooked.
Go on now, tell me how I’m trying to put my people on a pedestal here.
I don’t despise, nor did I decry, the Gallente people for the flaws in their system. Their system has flaws. Sucks to be them. They could address those flaws if enough of them wanted to, but they don’t. Some of them do want to, but not enough. Again: sucks to be them. We tried their system, and then we decided ‘we don’t like this system’. That doesn’t mean the system is bad for everyone, it just means we decided it’s not for us. Personally, I think that kind of mob rule is dangerous, but it’s their nation, they can run it however they like.
If you see me saying that as somehow decrying all Gallente, and ‘despising an entire group’, well, Pech, I think you may be getting a little punchy and defensive there, being a Fed Navy Academy alum. That’s not my problem. I can say ‘we didn’t think this was right for us, and I totally agree with that decision’ without saying ‘TEH GALANTAY ARE SCUUM’.
Are there not investors out there? Are capitalists nothing is not willing to take a risk?
Again you are assuming things. Why must a firm take the lead? And even if it does how can it retain that lead? Why was CreoDon allowed to exist and become the dominant drone manufacturer? Drones were being produced prior to Ceul Darieux return from Ouperia. Now it is a large and powerful corporation. Your narrative is that the powerful incumbent firms will squash the new upstarts. What happened here?
Yes, you are so right. When a product’s quality starts to decline people just keep buying it and never switch. Old large firms never go out of business?
In other words, you may not be shutting down that facility and realizing those savings. That the real answer is: it depends. Also, there is no one size fits all answer, which is what you are strongly hinting at.
You’ve gotta find the investors who are willing to take a risk. Most capitalists are willing to take that risk… until they have skin in the game. Once they’re invested, they want their investments to pay off. Most would rather go with a ‘sure thing’ than risk their money on a startup that might just get crushed under the heel of a market giant.
You realize you’re answering your own question there, right? Why must a firm take the lead? Because unless you introduce artificial constraints, no system remains in perfect equilibrium forever. It’s not impossible for an upstart to succeed and then turn around and become the dominant player, but it’s rare. You cite one case. How many other companies tried, and failed? What laws were in place that protected CreoDon in its earliest days? Without them, would it have survived?
Ah, now who’s introducing an assumption? Who said a product’s quality has to decline? Of course poor management decisions can weaken a company’s position. But that’s exactly the kind of upheaval I said it takes to cause re-examination of buying habits. And that has nothing to do with the ‘State support’ you say encourages monopolies.
In other words, 99+% of the time, it requires additional market pressures to retain that facility. You’re the one who keeps trying to apply a ‘one size fits all’ solution here, claiming ‘this MUST’ and so on.
Technically, bigger than a corvette, and corvette aren’t allowed access to majority on military installation, frigates usually have somewhat significant crew.
And one more remark: majority of casualties according to my estimation comes from the destruction of normal (not capsuleer) vessels, and that feeling I got by visual comparing amount of wrecks of capsuleer and not-capsuleer vessels in military installations. In the warzone a capsuleer ship destruction is way more rare event than destruction of a faction navy ship by a capsuleer.
Systems exist in two states:
State 1: Your faction controls it.
State 2: The other faction controls it.
In State 1, there’s no danger from the opposing Navy. Faction navies don’t flip systems. So capsuleers should be your only targets. They’re the ones who endanger State citizens, aren’t they? After all, the Fed Navy isn’t coming into the system, that’s all done by capsuleers. So if Faction Navy ships are dying, that means you’re not defending State citizens’ lives.
In State 2, a properly fitted ship can more or less ignore the small number of Navy defenders. And yes, I’ve done it. That means the only real danger you face is from other capsuleers—killing the baseliners who present no threat to you isn’t anymore more than an act of cowardly bloodlust, like killing a puppy. It doesn’t matter if the puppy is running along inside its fence, barking, it can’t get you. Don’t freaking shoot it. So if you’re killing baseliners, you’re not focusing on the objective, and you’re not remaining alert to the real threat.
In either case, sounds like a lot of ‘not doing your job’.
Yes, you’ve done it indeed.
You can’t capture a hostile military installation without destroying baseline ships, guarding it.
Your ignorance is truly fascinating, goon.