MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

that makes it start to sound practical. but consider: this scheme is designed for insider trading. it is a conspiracy! the number of participants must be kept small to avoid detection, and for trading on information from the far future, they need to be committed for a long time.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

the television licensing enforcers have it easy: they want very little information (yes or no), on a very short timespan (weeks), and since they have have had the actual meaning of their actions concealed from them, they can be employed in large numbers without problems.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

suppose you want to convey a large message, with enough information needed to, say, save old doctor who episodes from being destroyed, so they can be found in the future. a message needs hundreds of bits, coveyed over many decades. you need a huge and long-lasting conspiracy.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

well, the original insider trading conspiracy of old british men who worked in r&d was not large enough for this. it was a handful of people, in it for life for the fun of it. with regular meetings over a few decades, they could convey only a few bits of information back in time.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

but, they had just enough bits that they could retroactively bootstrap a larger conspiracy if necessary. you don't need a lot of bits to do insider trades. if you can make a successful trade, you can hire more people for your conspiracy, and now you have more bits. virtuous cycle

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

the only problem with this scheme is now you have to maintain a multi-decade insider trading conspiracy with exponential growth in membership over time.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

so, finally, what happened in 2006? well, you can probably guess at this point what occurred in many essentially identical 2006es: the tiny conspiracy of old men tried to use their half-century-long chain of side-channels to reach back a few decades and prevent media being lost.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

but we don't live in a timeline where they succeeded, because… well, co-ordination problems are hard?

there could be a timeline where they do succeed, but i think a conspiracy of (at least) hundreds maintaining a causality loop of decades is just too big.

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

ok i'm done

MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many)

(replying to MEMちょ 🌟 (one hikari of too many))

thanks for reading my weird fiction i made up as i was going along

the original… concept… was like a single sentence and was gonna be about market forces instead, but the feeling of the conclusion i ended up with is similar