That’s a lot of writing to say “ownership is the wrong word to use for many rights and abilities”. If you say “currently allowed to use in this way”, most of the confusion goes away.
I do think that it helps with some confusion, but there is a core important set of issues here regarding what is actually going on and which systems are better and worse in which ways.
You’re correct—I was responding too simply to the intro, which IMO exemplifies the confusion inherent in the content of the article. There’s some good stuff there about game design, about the subjective experience of value persistence and how it varies with price acquisition mechanism. But it’s tied in with unstated (and IMO incorrect) ideas about what ownership is.
That’s a lot of writing to say “ownership is the wrong word to use for many rights and abilities”. If you say “currently allowed to use in this way”, most of the confusion goes away.
I don’t think that’s right.
I do think that it helps with some confusion, but there is a core important set of issues here regarding what is actually going on and which systems are better and worse in which ways.
You’re correct—I was responding too simply to the intro, which IMO exemplifies the confusion inherent in the content of the article. There’s some good stuff there about game design, about the subjective experience of value persistence and how it varies with price acquisition mechanism. But it’s tied in with unstated (and IMO incorrect) ideas about what ownership is.