RE: Hive Unit-of-Account Evaporates Once Again

How many developers/coders feed a blogger? Could one say that a developer, for example, could be compared to the automation of production processes, i.e. a machine that replaces the work of 100 people? (just a random number).

If I understand it correctly, the programmer provides an environment in which the non-programmers then move around and do their operations. The programmer's work would not be of much value without those who populate or use this environment/application he has created. Isn't it the many that feed the few, just as vice versa? It's a two-lane road, passable in both directions.

Transferred to the hive sphere, I am not sure if this calculation is correct. Here, a few seem to feed a few others (I am not judging it right now, just a thesis). The developers/techs/financiers feed the developers/techs/financiers and the bloggers feed on hope? Could it be cynically said that hope must continue to be fed in any case so that the techs can continue to support each other? Are bloggers, therefore, the rank and file who serve the sole purpose of forming some kind of excitement community?

I'm trying to imagine that the field would be cleansed of bloggers, so that the techs would outnumber them. Would the techs be served by such a cleansed environment? Of course, this is an unrealistic notion as I assume that the tech to non-tech ratio will continue to be few to many. To me, it helps to think through such scenarios.

Underlying everything is the valuation of what a person is worth or how "essential" their existence and skills are considered to be. In a technical environment, as on Hive, there is a perceived undervaluing of those who have little or no technical understanding. I see a decoupling of the engineered existences from the non-engineered, with the latter living in an in-between world where they are considered inferior to the techs on the one hand, and inferior to the workers and machines that sustain them (agricultural mass production, harvest workers/cheap labourers) on the other.

One might jump to the conclusion that this middle is a kind of useless mass. But isn't that precisely the promise of modernity? That the many do not have to work hard or dully because automation and mechanisation make their work redundant? Are they then only interesting as single units to the extent that their data is seen as an asset? At least that is how it appears. How is an artist supposed to emerge from such a perceived inferiority?

People are not stupid. They perceive that their lack of talents is disproportionately emphasised in some areas and thus lack inspiration and motivation to rise above themselves. They experience that mediocrity is enough, although there is constant talk of quality, of art, but the effort to seek out someone in the sea of mediocrity cannot itself be automated and requires human effort. In the mass production of content, we then find the self-fulfilment of what is considered to be bad taste on the outside, but which is completely indifferent to the environment once provided, as long as only the thing runs.

What is an artist for you?