I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency.
Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism.
Because their followers have infantile minds.
And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains.
And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right.
Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass).
These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class).
And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism.
But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’.
The infantile, is equal to, the animal.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Just Use The Word: Infantilization
I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile, is equal to, the animal. -
JUST USE THE WORD: INFANTILIZATION I really don’t understand why we don’t just s
JUST USE THE WORD: INFANTILIZATION
I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency.
Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism.
Because their followers have infantile minds.
And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains.
And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right.
Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass).
These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class).
And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism.
But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’.
The infantile, is equal to, the animal.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 13:25:00 UTC
-
On Whether Propertarianism Contains An Aesthetic
–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.” I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’. In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law. I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms. And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration. And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science. But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods. I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized. Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis. Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences. But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications. For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution). None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods. Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs). And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.* But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag. Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence. I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again. Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
On Whether Propertarianism Contains An Aesthetic
–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.” I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’. In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law. I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms. And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration. And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science. But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods. I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized. Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis. Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences. But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications. For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution). None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods. Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs). And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.* But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag. Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence. I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again. Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
ON WHETHER PROPERTARIANISM CONTAINS AN AESTHETIC –“What’s your definition of ae
ON WHETHER PROPERTARIANISM CONTAINS AN AESTHETIC
–“What’s your definition of aesthetics? I read recently that someone complained about your arguments not having an aesthetic framing. Does that mean that they want you to essentially sugarcoat the truth with a layer of fanciful words to accommodate right-brain oriented “artists” who don’t want to see the truth at face value? If that’s the way “aesthetics” are meant to be understood, then it sounds like nothing more than a synonym of conflation. That’s horrible. This means that aesthetics is a big lie. You’ve got the plain truth in front of you, explained in the most simple, straightforward and accurate terms imaginable – and for some reason people want to sugarcoat it? Frame it like a damn Tolkien story? This is the epitome of corruption.”— A Friend
You are correct. “Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.”
I am not sure how any system of measurement, whether it be truth or law be ‘aesthetic’.
In that sense people want something between a philosophy and a religion, from a thing that is nothing more than a science of that spectrum we call Law.
I have had to apply that law to every subject in the human spectrum to clean them of various falsehoods even if those falsehoods are largely platonisms.
And for some people, pursuit of Transcendence of Man through Truth in the Commons, Rule of Law, Monarchy, Nation, and Family, is an insufficient inspiration.
And that’s OK. I am happy if they try to make a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, or cult around a science.
But that is not a criticism of the science itself. Because then it would not be a science. It is a criticism of those who are too … lacking in agency … that they require fairy stories for inspiration to prefer a science over the abrahamic falsehoods.
I have studied every revolution in history that has any meaningful documentation, and a revolution consists of nothing but incentives regardless of emotional wants, and a narrative justification for it that gives moral license for violence. And therefore a revolution with any durability will be one made from adult incentives, not the emotions of the infantilized.
Personally I just see these people as weak. And desperately in need of bonding with others on some emotional basis.
Now, Assuming my health doesn’t degrade further (I am currently working on the product because I’ve recovered enough to do that instead of research and write), I will release something close to a bible of law as my ‘work of my senior years’. Because it will be largely a work of narrative and opinion rather than a work of the sciences.
But the reframing of Aristotle’s categories from ideal to operational in Constant Relations(metaphysics), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism(sociology), Testimonialism(epistemology, Natural Law of Reciprocity(ethics), Rule of Law Juridical Monarchy (Politics: nomocracy), Profiting from the Domestication of the Animal Man(“Aryanism”), And Group Evolutionary Strategies (War), and yes ‘Aesthetics'(Transcendence) – as a science of aesthetics, is all via negativa arguments rather than via positiva justifications.
For the simple reason that I am certain that the method by which we transcend our individual selves, our family, tribe, nation and man, once we have reached the point of command of energy, is nothing more than via negativa: removal of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, theft, violence, free riding, the socialization of losses, the privatization of gains , corruption, conspiracy, statism (monopoly), propagandism, conversion (fictionalism, including false religions), parasitic reproduction (externalization of costs of reproduction), miscegenation (dysgenia), immigration, conquest, and genocide – all of which together produce evolution in mind and body (eugenic evolution).
None of which prohibit the use of violence to enforce those incremental suppressions of parasitism that produce frictions between our actions and our transcendence from man to gods.
Or let me put it another way: An artificial intelligence could operate by Propertarian reasoning and do no harm (impose costs), in the pursuit of doing good (productivity in the absence of the imposition of costs).
And it is impossible to lead men by words and conviction with truth. It is on the other hand possible to create a world in which men lead themselves to transcence *because they have no other choice available to them.*
But what we do with Truth, Reciprocity, Nomocracy, Domestication of man, and War in the pursuit of Transcendence, is a matter of choice of paths from the individual to the collective, to get there – not truth. The more closely they are followed the cheaper will be that transition, because the lower the drag.
Truth is a weapon gainst falsehood, and falsehood is just a friction (entropic loss) in the pursuit of transcendence.
I don’t want to create LEADERS of cults. I don’t need to. I want to create law so that we dont ever need them again.
Only children need be led by parents. Parents need not be led, only prohibited from parasitism. If that is the case, then that is the maximum computational velocity by which we can cooperation to transcend man, from the beast who learned to work metal, to the gods who owned the stars.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 12:13:00 UTC
-
On Rand
I dunno. I worked very hard on Rand in the early 90’s and there exist only two known criticisms and I’m not sure that they stand in any meaningful sense. I mean, I can tear apart pretty much anyone, and that includes Rawls and certainly Nozick (and demonstrably marx, keynes, mises, rothbard, rand and hoppe), and she isn’t any weaker than the rest of them except when she tries to transform it from narrative to analytic statements. And I bet I can handle (although It’s been a while) any criticism of her arguments other than her (failed) attempts at analytic ones (“A=A” is Rand’s version of Mises “Man Acts” – they are meaningless); The problem with Rand is Randians. She’s a doorway, from the novel as philosophy, to lite-philosophy, to her one piece of fantastic philosophy (Aesthetics). But, unlike most of us, Randians stop after they enter the doorway, like old people stop at the top of the escalator. You very rarely find people other than marxists and randians who are that dedicated to a single narrative. (and we can learn a great deal from the construction of narratives that are that compelling). Abrahamism is very interesting subject of study for the purpose of deception by continuously overloading a false premise (or in the jewish case deep metaphysical falsehoods that are necessary for the preservation of their pastoralist group evolutionary strategy). In the sense that she (a) popularized philosophy, (b) created a narrative path between marxism/socialism and classical liberalism, and (c), created an upper middle class set of narratives and values, I think she was successful. On the other hand, she’s an entry level thinker, trying to translate jewish ethics (without duty – libertinism) into anglo form (with duty – liberty), in order to prevent the left’s transmission of negative duty (defense of all capital) into positive duty (transfer of wealth), the same they way that translated negative freedom (from imposition by others) to positive freedom (imposition upon others). And I think she made that argument in the terms it needed to be made: *sentimentally*. That she tried to formalize it the way jewish law was formalized, and that she called aristotelian instead, didn’t work without innumeracy. Marx could get away with innumeracy because of the primitive state of economics. Pseddorationalism (claims to logical completeness) are identical to innumeracy (numerology), and not very different from economic innumeracy (cherry picking). Unfortunately, she failed to say it as clearly as I just did, and tried to state it as a universal…. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute -
ON RAND I dunno. I worked very hard on Rand in the early 90’s and there exist on
ON RAND
I dunno. I worked very hard on Rand in the early 90’s and there exist only two known criticisms and I’m not sure that they stand in any meaningful sense. I mean, I can tear apart pretty much anyone, and that includes Rawls and certainly Nozick (and demonstrably marx, keynes, mises, rothbard, rand and hoppe), and she isn’t any weaker than the rest of them except when she tries to transform it from narrative to analytic statements. And I bet I can handle (although It’s been a while) any criticism of her arguments other than her (failed) attempts at analytic ones (“A=A” is Rand’s version of Mises “Man Acts” – they are meaningless);
The problem with Rand is Randians. She’s a doorway, from the novel as philosophy, to lite-philosophy, to her one piece of fantastic philosophy (Aesthetics). But, unlike most of us, Randians stop after they enter the doorway, like old people stop at the top of the escalator.
You very rarely find people other than marxists and randians who are that dedicated to a single narrative. (and we can learn a great deal from the construction of narratives that are that compelling). Abrahamism is very interesting subject of study for the purpose of deception by continuously overloading a false premise (or in the jewish case deep metaphysical falsehoods that are necessary for the preservation of their pastoralist group evolutionary strategy).
In the sense that she (a) popularized philosophy, (b) created a narrative path between marxism/socialism and classical liberalism, and (c), created an upper middle class set of narratives and values, I think she was successful.
On the other hand, she’s an entry level thinker, trying to translate jewish ethics (without duty – libertinism) into anglo form (with duty – liberty), in order to prevent the left’s transmission of negative duty (defense of all capital) into positive duty (transfer of wealth), the same they way that translated negative freedom (from imposition by others) to positive freedom (imposition upon others).
And I think she made that argument in the terms it needed to be made: *sentimentally*.
That she tried to formalize it the way jewish law was formalized, and that she called aristotelian instead, didn’t work without innumeracy. Marx could get away with innumeracy because of the primitive state of economics. Pseddorationalism (claims to logical completeness) are identical to innumeracy (numerology), and not very different from economic innumeracy (cherry picking).
Unfortunately, she failed to say it as clearly as I just did, and tried to state it as a universal….
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-31 08:55:00 UTC
-
On Rand
I dunno. I worked very hard on Rand in the early 90’s and there exist only two known criticisms and I’m not sure that they stand in any meaningful sense. I mean, I can tear apart pretty much anyone, and that includes Rawls and certainly Nozick (and demonstrably marx, keynes, mises, rothbard, rand and hoppe), and she isn’t any weaker than the rest of them except when she tries to transform it from narrative to analytic statements. And I bet I can handle (although It’s been a while) any criticism of her arguments other than her (failed) attempts at analytic ones (“A=A” is Rand’s version of Mises “Man Acts” – they are meaningless); The problem with Rand is Randians. She’s a doorway, from the novel as philosophy, to lite-philosophy, to her one piece of fantastic philosophy (Aesthetics). But, unlike most of us, Randians stop after they enter the doorway, like old people stop at the top of the escalator. You very rarely find people other than marxists and randians who are that dedicated to a single narrative. (and we can learn a great deal from the construction of narratives that are that compelling). Abrahamism is very interesting subject of study for the purpose of deception by continuously overloading a false premise (or in the jewish case deep metaphysical falsehoods that are necessary for the preservation of their pastoralist group evolutionary strategy). In the sense that she (a) popularized philosophy, (b) created a narrative path between marxism/socialism and classical liberalism, and (c), created an upper middle class set of narratives and values, I think she was successful. On the other hand, she’s an entry level thinker, trying to translate jewish ethics (without duty – libertinism) into anglo form (with duty – liberty), in order to prevent the left’s transmission of negative duty (defense of all capital) into positive duty (transfer of wealth), the same they way that translated negative freedom (from imposition by others) to positive freedom (imposition upon others). And I think she made that argument in the terms it needed to be made: *sentimentally*. That she tried to formalize it the way jewish law was formalized, and that she called aristotelian instead, didn’t work without innumeracy. Marx could get away with innumeracy because of the primitive state of economics. Pseddorationalism (claims to logical completeness) are identical to innumeracy (numerology), and not very different from economic innumeracy (cherry picking). Unfortunately, she failed to say it as clearly as I just did, and tried to state it as a universal…. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute -
The thing about competing with FB is that it’s actually not hard. (a) performanc
The thing about competing with FB is that it’s actually not hard.
(a) performance. Every other attempt has been slow. FB is just email v2. It’s not complicated.
(b) minimum features. Every other attempt has been either too little (I won’t name names), or too pretty (I won’t name names).
(c) confusing twitter (news) with facebook (email). The fact that we don’t have a twitter clone in fb is rather odd to me. The fact that a lot of startups try to make a twitter clones just … amazes me. Retweets are only one measure. Why doesn’t twitter rate users, and conversations on a subject, as well as the popularity of a stream?
(d) confusing medium( articles -I have no idea if that’s gonna survive) with facebook ( conversations on articles).
(e) confusing quora and Wiki: wikipedia is great beecause most of it was fukcing STOLEN from the encyclopedia. The problem is that there is no competition, and no method of showing right, libertarian, and left positions on subjects that need it. For the simple reason that editing is a monopoly (cult) where there IS NO NPOV on most questions OTHER than reciprocity (Which is beyond them)..
(c) Lacking taboos – its one thing to select your interests and friends, its another to select taboos that you don’t want to see that limit what you can see (and say for that matter).
Anyway. The market is there to provide a competitor but the minimum feature set isn’t something you’re going to produce in a few months by hobbyists. That era like the era of single programmer video games, has all but passed except for outliers.
Minimum features. Court the adult market and therefore the money. Rember hat FB makes a disproportionate amount of its money from the third world. That means there is an amazing opportunity for advertising in the first world, at far lower prices, with zero trickery involved.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-30 19:17:00 UTC