5 ms·

> ... these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. this logic only works out if you approach things myopically. do y

by exit 16y ago

> ... these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. this logic only works out if you approach things myopically. do you think drug dealers provide a useful commodity? they're certainly making a lot of money. the apps described take advantage of some neurological disposition to gimmicks / novelty - it's not a given that the world is a better place because of them.

steveklabnik 16y ago
I guess you're calling capitalism myopic. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the framework we've set up. (And yes, I do think drug dealers provide value. It's a service, people want it. In any other context, we'd be writing articles about how a perceptive entrepreneur rose up from a simple upbringing to rolling in cash, it's just that we look down upon the product.) There's a pretty decent sibling of mine who's dead. You may want to turn showdead on temporarily.
- exit 16y ago
  yes, capitalism is myopic and you can justify many myopic conclusions by limiting yourself to its framework. > ... it's just that we look down upon the product. that's an amusing misdirection. it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. > What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. wealth is control over other people. having lots of money in a capitalist system is a proxy for being able to control lots of other people in this system. taking advantage of neurological hooks (chemical in the case of drugs, or sensual in the case of advertising / apps / etc) is certainly one way to gain controller over others (by the proxy of money). i suppose if your concerns are entirely contained within the bounds of playing that game (very much the case for many entrepreneurial types) there's no motivation to challenge its definition of "value".
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. This is an 'amusing misdirection,' to use your own words, about you forcing your own morality on others. There are plenty of people that use drugs without ruining their lives, no need to get high and mighty about it. > wealth is control over other people. Hey man, I'm an anarchist. I understand exactly what you're saying. But regardless of my own personal thoughts on the subject, that's not the way that this country is set up. As I said over here[1], it's just that we're talking about two different things. Within capitalism, kreci is creating value. If you'd like to discuss a different system, then you need to tell everyone that you're talking about something else. When on a forum about startups, I assume people are discussing the current system by default. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865
ecounysis 16y ago
I think it is very difficult to objectively say that anyone who likes these apps has an "unfortunate neurological disposition to gimmicks". From your perspective the world may be a worse place because of these apps (and drugs), but for the people who like these apps (or people who like drugs) they make the world more enjoyable. What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. We could impose our own values and what we want on other people's preferences, but then we are forcing the definition of wealth to be limited to only things we want, rather than what people in general want.

by exit 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago

I guess you're calling capitalism myopic. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the framework we've set up. (And yes, I do think drug dealers provide value. It's a service, people want it. In any other context, we'd be writing articles about how a perceptive entrepreneur rose up from a simple upbringing to rolling in cash, it's just that we look down upon the product.) There's a pretty decent sibling of mine who's dead. You may want to turn showdead on temporarily.

exit 16y ago
yes, capitalism is myopic and you can justify many myopic conclusions by limiting yourself to its framework. > ... it's just that we look down upon the product. that's an amusing misdirection. it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. > What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. wealth is control over other people. having lots of money in a capitalist system is a proxy for being able to control lots of other people in this system. taking advantage of neurological hooks (chemical in the case of drugs, or sensual in the case of advertising / apps / etc) is certainly one way to gain controller over others (by the proxy of money). i suppose if your concerns are entirely contained within the bounds of playing that game (very much the case for many entrepreneurial types) there's no motivation to challenge its definition of "value".
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. This is an 'amusing misdirection,' to use your own words, about you forcing your own morality on others. There are plenty of people that use drugs without ruining their lives, no need to get high and mighty about it. > wealth is control over other people. Hey man, I'm an anarchist. I understand exactly what you're saying. But regardless of my own personal thoughts on the subject, that's not the way that this country is set up. As I said over here[1], it's just that we're talking about two different things. Within capitalism, kreci is creating value. If you'd like to discuss a different system, then you need to tell everyone that you're talking about something else. When on a forum about startups, I assume people are discussing the current system by default. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865

ecounysis 16y ago

I think it is very difficult to objectively say that anyone who likes these apps has an "unfortunate neurological disposition to gimmicks". From your perspective the world may be a worse place because of these apps (and drugs), but for the people who like these apps (or people who like drugs) they make the world more enjoyable. What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. We could impose our own values and what we want on other people's preferences, but then we are forcing the definition of wealth to be limited to only things we want, rather than what people in general want.