Users may feel as if the lack of visibility and control are frustrating, but ultimately it is their expectation that the technologies they want will fall from somewhere higher in the water column for free that constrains their options.

I mean something derogatory. Contemptuous. I have said in the past that alternating of destruction and creation, refining and revolting, is natural and necessary to converge yet escape static cycles. Applying a kind of cynicism toward the commensal bottom dwellers is somewhere mid-revolt, rejecting the deficient and impossible to focus on what may work.

I continue converging on solutions to the problem of how the paying consumer will retain great open development. No solutions I come across, no models even for solutions are within the same galaxy of framing as the mindset of the consumer, and yet the real consumer's views, not necessarily the self-selected who speak on the internet, will decide outcomes. Some revolution and contempt is necessary to push through activation barriers.

Contrast with the perspective of the builder. Switching programs is not an option because the program one is building must be made to work. The builders are very much not on the same page with the user. We are not in alliance at all. The user expects that we find some business opportunity elsewhere to drive the water wheels and yet the software we emit should cater to their needs, and when it does not, "it's so frustrating."

Sales often involves finding the best lies to deliver the truth. Natural language is not a particularly precise instrument, so these kind of heuristic tickling approaches in conjunction with building more self-evident things for people to simply believe at first sight are the best that can be done. A craving for chaos and undefinition is an appropriate reaction to the need to explore more forcefully and less in line with the impossible expectations of consumers who would write their own ruin if left alone.