Fundamentally, it is disgusting we are forced by government to buy insurance products (e.g., car, health) provided by for-profit companies; however, I do not support universal healthcare either. The government has zero ability to control its expenditure, because the electorate vote themselves benefits.
The long-term financial incentives to maintain a functioning society are all broken because of the misaligned short-term (vote for me, get free stuff) and long-term incentives (debt reduction, financial management, business planning and other investments.) Voters are simply looting the treasury at this point. It is a shame. I cannot believe anyone actually buys into the notion that government will fix problems, or somehow do a better job than what already exists.
The candidates are just handing you money from your own pockets, and skimming off the top.
What else would you call students voting for loan forgiveness? Point blank the candidate is effectively saying, "we will give you $xx,xxx" in the form of loan forgiveness. It is the same for healthcare. This is a literal voting for benefits; and, this creates perverse incentives for the electorate to vote for whomever will "pay them" the most for their vote. Candidates are simply buying votes by offering free stuff with taxpayer monies. It is completely broken at this point with one candidate trying to out-give the next.
Except that here in Europe (Germany and Austria) in each election, saving money on social programs by cutting cost overhead as well as services is a big topic and parties arguing for those cuts regularly get around half of the votes.
The one candidate tries to buy votes by offering free stuff pairs by taxpayer money, the other one tries to buy votes by promising to stop giving out free and lowering taxes.
So let's say that the roads in my town are broken. No one can drive on them because they're filled with potholes.
One candidate says that they're going to reorganize the local government so that our roads will be fixed. With your argument, that candidate is trying to bribe voters in order to get into office and the voters are simply voting for benefits.
I get your concern of government bungling the financial aspects. However, are we all OK with 68K people dying every year due to lack of coverage? Do we have evidence that medicare recipients ration insulin?
How is this fundamentally different from the electorate voting for an army to protect them, or firefighters to put out their fires? These are also paid for by taxes and where the electorate will vote for their own benefit.
Aren't the electorate also the ones voting for tax structures (or for the politicians who'll implement them)?
> because the electorate vote themselves benefits.
Doesn't this cut both ways? Rich people voting for austerity is equivalent to the wealthy voting themselves benefits. You won't find the right balance if you always demonize welfare in favor of tax cuts.
Neat product, we rolled something similar to this using Slack where we manage the phone system, etc. I especially like how you can reply within Slack and text back the customer. Seems like your major problem with this startup is usage costs as text messages and phone calls can quickly add up. We are a small team of ~7 people and our monthly Twilio expense is twice your price here. I.e., not priced high enough.
I might prefer this product with a slight change: instead of trusting you my business phone number, maybe I could simply point my Twilio endpoint to your servers? That way you are not soaking up passthrough costs of customer usage; plus, I don't have to worry about getting my number from you after all my customers are familiar with that number. Anyways, it's a neat concept. I have provided our phone system to other businesses and can totally see the value in this product.
We can do that for you. We can give you the API endpoints to hit from Twilio. Want to shoot me an email at parthi@founderphone.com or text at 510 756 2522?
Your last question is loaded; it assumes maximizing profit is bad. In practice high profit margins are often a reward for being first to market. Maybe those high margins are a recompense for R&D costs. Plenty of answers to rebuke your suggestion that maximizing profits is unethical. It's also a situational topic made more nuanced by the specific product, company and many other circumstances.
This article says nothing about compensation for heavy R&D costs. It doesn't concern itself with develpment and production costs at all. It is just describing ways in which consumers can be manipulated into spending the highest amount of money possible.
There's no need to fit the post into a larger narrative; it is what it is. Seems more like you may be projecting your psychology or fears onto the article. It's just a list of pricing psychology tricks. And it cuts both ways you know; readers learn how pricing strategies may affect their buying decisions.
The article is not advocating for the "manipulation" of anyone. It's up to the reader to implement, ignore or consider. If the title and some words were rephrased it could be an article on how to spot pricing tricks; the content would mostly be the same.
Your response is loaded as well: you describe maximizing profits, but you don't describe the scenario required for this to be a good heuristic: a functioning market made up of primarily rational consumers who choose the best product based on its merits and cost.
But we have found that spending money on trained psychologists (or schemes developed by them) who abuse natural human tenancies to trick consumers into irrationally spending money or more money on your products is very effective at maximizing profits. But it simultaneously removes the condition that's required to make maximizing profits a good thing.
coldtea's point is that "difficult" when you can walk away from it and never have to work another day in your life, and "difficult" when getting it wrong means that your life and your childrens' lives are ruined for years, live in two entirely different strata of meaning.
Think about this way. Imagine if you could spend the next year absolutely any way you want to (within bounds of laws and human possibility and decency).
Larry Page chooses to do his job instead of doing that. I can't imagine the unenviable parts of his job adds up to anything beyond a rounding error.
The one part I can have some sympathy for is the lack of any sort of privacy (and the accompanying inability to go for a walk in the park by yourself), but those aren't the points mentioned here, and are worse for your regular TV/Hollywood types, who have less privacy as they are more recognizable, and much less money.
Let's be honest, a billionaire could walk away and their next several hundred generations wouldn't ever have to work and they'd all live very comfortable lives.
Because they are a human being, and because wealth is not equal to happiness. It seems to correlate with happiness, but probably because wealthier people have less stress, and that's certainly not true for a CEO.
I think everyone deserves sympathy, because everyone is a human being. Larry Page's life as a CEO is surely stressful and he deserves sympathy for it. But I bet there are plenty of "poor single mother"s and "40-something factory worker"s with very stressful lives too, in many cases even more stressful than any billionaire CEO's. That can't be denied.
But think about the sort of pressure that would be on Larry's shoulders. If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.
For a poor single mother or 40 something factory worker, their stress is more localised to their own family's well-being.
I think the problem here is that people try to compare or value stress on a scale of entitlement. I don't think it's that simple. I agree everyone deserves sympathy, because at the end of the day, we all experience stress on some level. One person's experience of stress is never more valid than another's.
"If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families."
Do you really think CEO's care about the help? Watch what happens if Google gets broken up, or takes a nose dive like so many companies. That Playland campus will just be a story we reminisce about. Larry Page, nor any of the others won't be crying in their wine.
They will take their safe money and do something else. Bill Gates had the hubris to think he could solve the worlds problems with his wealth. I always felt it was our wealth? He practically "strong armed" every pc user.
"Oh he's being negative! Let's get him with our finger." I don't think I'm being negative, just a realist. I have seen too many CEO's decimate companies when the wind starts to blow in another direction. They always fatten their stake.
I think people are selfish by nature. When they become wealthy, and the one in charge; they just get worse. I really can't think of an exception?
>But think about the sort of pressure that would be on Larry's shoulders. If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.
And yet, a vast majority of CEOs don't give a fuck about all this, and can destroy companies happily, and fly to another on their golden parachutes.
> If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.
He is remarkable in every way possible, but I doubt this is true. World won't end, if he quits. Google and everyone in there will be just fine. Look at Jobs (and many other "irreplaceable" people), for example.
Personal anecdote: I've experienced worrying about finishing project so that my two employees would still have a job next month and so that people who invested their personal savings in the project would get at least most of it back. I have also experienced worrying about getting next check as a freelancer supporting a family.
The latter was far worse – even though I knew we had a family safety-net.
I think it's reasonable to have more sympathy to problems of people struggling for well-being of their own family than "it's lonely at the top" kinds of problems.
"I have fired people. It is brutal. I have been fired. It's worse. So managers, please: Never solicit sympathy for the pain of firing people." – Reginald Braithwaite.
Except the Regressive Left is doing a good job proving they aren't all that open minded. The new liberal coming out of college campuses from safe spaces is not open minded at all. So perhaps in the past Liberals could make the claim of open mindedness, but not today. Especially when conservatives are banned from speaking on college campuses, not to mention being banned from social media.
Your comment shows the level of misinformation and reputation damage done by media and various social movements. America is safe for all law-abiding persons. Not only do I disagree with your comment, but I find it offensive that you would propagate the myth. It's damaging and unsubstantiated.
Your comment shows the level of misinformation and reputation damage done by media and various social movements. Not only do I disagree with your comment, but I find it offensive that you would propagate the myth. It's damaging and unsubstantiated.
Then we can argue about the definition of safe, or the reasonable expectation of safety. But it seems that Hacker News would rather point to one example which apparently "invalidates" the claim "handily". What do you consider safe then? If you are determined to argue based on one example; Do you not take a risk starting a business? Do you not take a risk eating foods? Do you not take a risk driving?
There are reasonable mistakes made in the course of living and of any action. So if you want to exaggerate the claim of one (or even a few) examples to the point of making it appear as an epidemic in America; then I will hold you to a higher standard than the half-assed arguments that I see here. Many people engaged with these narratives are grossly misrepresenting legitimate claims of police brutality or racial discrimination. If you cannot be honest in debate, then I would also not expect the same to be honest in any proposed solution. Blatant misrepresentation by so many; it's disgusting.
If we can argue about the definition of safe, then "America is safe" is meaningless. Why don't you help us out by defining how you measure safety, and "law abiding" for that matter. Is anybody in the US rigorously law-abiding? Based on what evidence?
Yes, the person using a throwaway account says that your statement is patently false. And as you attacked the only thing you could attack, I assume you know that as well, "buddy"!
Sure, I will remember your name, Olsco. My name isn't hard to remember - it's Away; Throw Away.
> Nice astro-turfing in your comment history
Do you not even know what astroturfing is? Keep attacking my HN handle - just shows that you know your statement was patently, absurdly and almost hilariously false.
Silicon Valley hasn't released a blockbuster app, website or company in a while. Particularly social media companies that upend the rest of the world and the way it functions. The directly consumer facing / social companies really move perception versus other companies that don't interact with the general public. There was also the iPhone 2007 which changed the way the entire world used their phones, and a lot of fallout change with it. I think the media attention seems to have lulled a bit since there haven't been what I'll call blockbuster techs in a while; e.g., some large consumer facing company that changes people's lifestyles. So maybe the glamour is missing. The amount of attention SV received a few years ago seemed to be bigger, with everyone eagerly awaiting new life changing tech that is as obvious as the iPhone, FB, Instagram, YouTube or other very consumer facing and widely used consumer companies.
Seems like Uber and Snapchat were the last game changing companies for how people interact with the world via tech on a large scale. IMO it's lack of media attention, excitement and companies that are very obvious lifestyle changers.
I wish we'd get back to science-tech instead of social-tech. Science requires a longer investment period (decades instead of a couple of years), but the paybacks are tremendous, particularly to society as a whole. I really like what Google is doing — essentially funding research that may not pan out, but that has the potential to be revolutionary if it succeeds (e.g. quantum computing).
This reminds me of a blog post (that I can't seem to find now) where he complains we've gotten so far away fro solving the hard problems that nobody is really doing it because it's too lucrative to make stupid apps that distract people. I have to agree with him and you. Facebook was a nice diversion but there are honest-to-God problems in this world that I think our industry could make a dent in. We need to get back to solving the hard problems.
Are you possibly thinking of this BusinessWeek article [1] about Jeff Hammerbacher and his famous quote: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads"
I've found that there is a certain mindset that only considers the last 18-24 months as "recent" in the tech space. It's probably a similar mindset to that which makes you feel that only the latest and greatest frameworks are worth learning, for example.
Right, but 24 months isn't enough time for a brand new startup to become a 'blockbuster'. None of the current big tech cos like Google, Amazon, Facebook, were a 'blockbuster' within 24 months of being founded. If you want to see that kind of startup success, you HAVE to look more than a couple years back. Startups can grow very quickly, but not THAT quickly.
Uber? Meh. All they've actually done is start to displace an incumbent rent-seeker by exploiting loopholes to charge a lower rent. It's great for the customer, but if that's you're idea of a revolutionary product...
Snapchat obliterated Facebook's news feed with the younger generations under 25. Status updates are now Snapchat stories, and news feed items on Facebook are more like life milestones. So I think it changes the way younger demographics use social media. It definitely encourages a lot more trivial sharing of activities throughout the day with others.
It's not that Snapchat is critical infrastructure. It's that they've captured the attention of a generation and are going to potentially build things in the future that could define how people interact with technology. I'm not saying that they will, it's too early to tell because they're just getting started. We'll see. But it's much too soon to dismiss it as just a chat app as well.
So they have a platform that's going to shape the next generations social interactions for the worse [1], and can only barely monetize (and if they can monetize profitably, its for an audience with the least amount of purchasing power in several generations)?
Are you kidding? Advertisers trip over themselves for the chance to advertise to consumerism-drenched, trend-driven teenagers and soon-to-be twenty-somethings.
I would say Tesla is on its way to make an iPhone-like impact, along with other self driving car technologies. I would consider the Tesla's Autopilot to be a blockbuster feature.
Tesla is important but will never sell anywhere near like an iPhone. Best case, in 10-20 years it's the self-driving fleet of choice and huge chunks of people ditch their cars for on-demand transportation. But even then in rural ares I'll wager there will still be many more people with iPhones than will be using Teslas.
> Tesla is important but will never sell anywhere near like an iPhone.
One of the best parts about victories that large is that the benefit decouples from the original product. You don't have to buy an iPhone anymore, you can buy that $4 android touchscreen phone that is dirt cheap but only exists because the iPhone blazed various technical and cultural trails that turned something new and magical into a boring commodity, to the benefit of mankind.
Just as the premium $500 iPad leads to the $50 amazon fire, so too does the $150k tesla lead to the equivalent $20k toyota in a few years. That's a huge deal.
And there is the supply chain argument.. A Drone is basically a flying smartphone. Every new hardware product uses the smartphone supply chain. Imagine the effects of electric car/battery supply chain, one obvious effect is that everything else is going to be electric from buses to boats. We can also see the effects of the battery tech on solar power. Once people can efficiently store the solar energy they produce themselves for days, and even sell it to their neighbors through blockchain.
I've never used Snapchat and I hadn't used Uber until a month ago when I found myself working away from home and without a car. I haven't seen any truly revolutionary technology since smartphones became mainstream. Most of the social media applications unfortunately seem geared to the lowest common denominator, I don't see people like Mark Zuckerberg or Sergey Brin extensively making use of them. I have a very difficult time discussing meaningful topics when I am limited to 140 characters or can only share photos.
Not to be pedantic but Snapchat is actually from LA and they're very proud of this fact. In the VC context, they did take money from (Silicon Valley) VCs, but their origins and workforce isn't from SV.
Being even more pedantic, SnapChat started in a class in Stanford. They moved to LA because that's where their early users were and where they started to go viral.
(Of course, being equally pedantic about other Silicon Valley companies - Facebook, Reddit, Dropbox, and YCombinator all "started" in Boston, and the critical events in both AirBnB & Twitter's history happened at SXSW in Austin.)
One of the last consumer-facing, blockbuster level startups outside of SV (or California) that comes to mind was Groupon. But I don't consider them to be that great; kind of a fad that took off for a while and is now lingering. When I say blockbuster level startup I mean something that becomes a household name used by mostly consumers. Highly visible companies mostly. I lump LA/SV together because they're in the same state, and there seems to be a lot of inter-funding between the two areas. But I'm also from Chicago so maybe it's just me. Hah.
I'd argue that question, the way it's phrased, is very revealing the advance of tech and the things enabled by tech don't begin and end with smartphone apps. There's a pretty strong social/web/app mindset to the SV lens today and it causes a lot of people to undervalue and overlook what's happening elsewhere. For example, as other have mentioned, biotech/pharma is huge in places like Cambridge and is barely represented in SV.
I used the term "app" but I really meant company. But the important term in the question is "blockbuster". If people are undervaluing and overlooking what's happening elsewhere it's because those things aren't blockbusters. Biotech/pharma companies have been pretty disappointing in terms of blockbuster discoveries. Maybe CRISPR will change that.
Sorry. I understand the sentiment behind this but disagree with advisory or demands to speak a certain way. It's blatant political correctness and nobody has an obligation to set another person's expectation regarding coding. In common vernacular we say something is easy as an attempt to encourage a person to continue. This would just be changing words in order to achieve the same goal. What difference does it make if some say it's easy and others say it's hard? Let the dynamic range of opinions be. Is it necessary to squash one opinion over the other in an attempt to soothe the struggling of a few newbies?
I find meta-arguments like this really silly. You are simultaneously telling him that people are entitled to their own opinions while at the same time saying his opinion is invalid.
As to it being political correctness, I would argue that has little to do with it. It's really marketing - an attempt to change the perception of something to achieve some goal. No one's feelings are hurt when you say something is challenging (I guess unless you explicitly say challenging compared to what).
The long-term financial incentives to maintain a functioning society are all broken because of the misaligned short-term (vote for me, get free stuff) and long-term incentives (debt reduction, financial management, business planning and other investments.) Voters are simply looting the treasury at this point. It is a shame. I cannot believe anyone actually buys into the notion that government will fix problems, or somehow do a better job than what already exists.
The candidates are just handing you money from your own pockets, and skimming off the top.
It's so damn dumb.