3 ms·
> $9B is nice. But are you sure you wouldn't rather affect the world? That's a false dichotomy isn't it? You could have a large impact on the world with that s
by IanCal 9y ago
> $9B is nice. But are you sure you wouldn't rather affect the world?
That's a false dichotomy isn't it? You could have a large impact on the world with that sort of money.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoYou could be right. But there are only so many ways to convert $B into impact. The most straightforward way is to become an investor, but investing isn't so easy. And while it's true investors are one of the most important engines driving our economy, investors aren't makers. The CEO is the one with the power to get the whole company working toward a shared goal, set by the CEO. And when your company is as ubiquitous as Slack, you have the best people fighting to work for you. That's a degree of influence you might not get back, even with billions. From another angle, consider Steve Jobs. He had the money; he could've done anything. But being CEO of Apple was worth more.
- Fomite 9y agoI mean, $9 billion could fund 4800 research labs at R01 levels for 5 years, even with a fairly generous 50% indirect cost rate. Pretty sure that could have some impact.