5 ms·

a social club and hobbyist group can't make big world changes without the cycle of capital pumping through it's veins. For that, you need a company. Or a really

a social club and hobbyist group can't make big world changes without the cycle of capital pumping through it's veins. For that, you need a company. Or a really good non-profit message.

lazide 4y ago
If the cycle of capital is required…. Isn’t making money literally the necessary sustaining part?
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  Make it yes. Put it in your pocket no
  - lazide 4y ago
    Seems like a whole lot of yak shaving then. Seems pretty dumb? Or self delusional?
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      It really depends on what you mean by "making money" and the distinction is important. The world is currently setup a certain way, and if you want most peoples' time, a lot of which is required for big impact, you need to pay them $ so that they can shelter and feed themselves. So generally you at least need gross margin from revenue to be able to pay employee costs. So you can "make money" as in revenue, but as an owner, never take much more than an $80k salary providing for your basics, even over the course of decades. Right now, that's probably the best model to get things done. Even Google and Facebook have only skimmed off a tiny amount of their total profit to some founder real estate and yachts, due to their zero dividend and repeated truckloads of $ dumped back into company reinvestment consisting of employees.
      - lazide 4y ago
        But this is what I’m referring to as self delusion. Google and Facebook made their founders insanely wealthy. Literally some of the most wealthy individuals on the planet. Taking on such a large amount of risk and doing such a huge amount of work, with the goal of (legitimately) only paying oneself $80k if successful - which is not a livable wage for most people doing founder work in the Bay Area - doesn’t make sense. It’s literally stupid if that’s the goal, because it’s self destructive. It’s literally all risk, no reward. At a minimum, rewards enough to rebuild reserves and set someone up to not have to worry about daily expenses and be able to take several large future bets without risking bankruptcy seems saner.
        enos_feedler 4y ago
        Why not? I collect $60k annual in dividend income and live off of it in palo alto building the next version of the web. fuck vc.
        lazide 4y ago
        Because that is a very, very, VERY narrow and hard to hit target. It's intentionally limiting both the upside AND the downside. If that's what you end up with, hey that's cool. There are far worse outcomes possible in the world, and that one is pretty decent. But why not be open to more? Especially when starting and planning. After all, if things go well enough, you could do the same with $1 of salary. None of that necessarily requires VC either, just an open mind. Intentionally saying 'I don't want to make enough money to be wealthy' at a job which is based on building a machine to make money, is intentionally handicapping oneself. Think of it like setting a required minimum latency for a UI or API that you would intentionally never serve a response faster. Folks are welcome to do whatever they want of course, and if my competitors prefer to do this, that's cool by me! If someone doesn't trust themselves with the potential success, I could also understand that. But maybe it would be worth working on that part first. Because that will be a huge problem regardless.
        enos_feedler 4y ago
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  For an IT project (up to some scale) the primary form of capital needed is time. With some savings or some other source of income one can have a acceptable lifestyle and time for something which one enjoys.
safety1st 4y ago
Linux Torvalds? The FSF? Mastodon? For what might be the next one, Andreas Kling with Serenity/Ladybird? The first graphical web browser was built by a couple of college students. Have none of these had a big impact on the world? One of the unique properties of software is that creating it doesn't have to be a capital intensive affair.
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  I agree. I was being sarcastic

a social club and hobbyist group can't make big world changes without the cycle of capital pumping through it's veins. For that, you need a company. Or a really good non-profit message.

lazide 4y ago

If the cycle of capital is required…. Isn’t making money literally the necessary sustaining part?

enos_feedler 4y ago
Make it yes. Put it in your pocket no
- lazide 4y ago
  Seems like a whole lot of yak shaving then. Seems pretty dumb? Or self delusional?
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    It really depends on what you mean by "making money" and the distinction is important. The world is currently setup a certain way, and if you want most peoples' time, a lot of which is required for big impact, you need to pay them $ so that they can shelter and feed themselves. So generally you at least need gross margin from revenue to be able to pay employee costs. So you can "make money" as in revenue, but as an owner, never take much more than an $80k salary providing for your basics, even over the course of decades. Right now, that's probably the best model to get things done. Even Google and Facebook have only skimmed off a tiny amount of their total profit to some founder real estate and yachts, due to their zero dividend and repeated truckloads of $ dumped back into company reinvestment consisting of employees.
    - lazide 4y ago
      But this is what I’m referring to as self delusion. Google and Facebook made their founders insanely wealthy. Literally some of the most wealthy individuals on the planet. Taking on such a large amount of risk and doing such a huge amount of work, with the goal of (legitimately) only paying oneself $80k if successful - which is not a livable wage for most people doing founder work in the Bay Area - doesn’t make sense. It’s literally stupid if that’s the goal, because it’s self destructive. It’s literally all risk, no reward. At a minimum, rewards enough to rebuild reserves and set someone up to not have to worry about daily expenses and be able to take several large future bets without risking bankruptcy seems saner.
      - enos_feedler 4y ago
        Why not? I collect $60k annual in dividend income and live off of it in palo alto building the next version of the web. fuck vc.
        lazide 4y ago
        Because that is a very, very, VERY narrow and hard to hit target. It's intentionally limiting both the upside AND the downside. If that's what you end up with, hey that's cool. There are far worse outcomes possible in the world, and that one is pretty decent. But why not be open to more? Especially when starting and planning. After all, if things go well enough, you could do the same with $1 of salary. None of that necessarily requires VC either, just an open mind. Intentionally saying 'I don't want to make enough money to be wealthy' at a job which is based on building a machine to make money, is intentionally handicapping oneself. Think of it like setting a required minimum latency for a UI or API that you would intentionally never serve a response faster. Folks are welcome to do whatever they want of course, and if my competitors prefer to do this, that's cool by me! If someone doesn't trust themselves with the potential success, I could also understand that. But maybe it would be worth working on that part first. Because that will be a huge problem regardless.
        enos_feedler 4y ago
johannes1234321 4y ago
For an IT project (up to some scale) the primary form of capital needed is time. With some savings or some other source of income one can have a acceptable lifestyle and time for something which one enjoys.

safety1st 4y ago

Linux Torvalds? The FSF? Mastodon? For what might be the next one, Andreas Kling with Serenity/Ladybird? The first graphical web browser was built by a couple of college students. Have none of these had a big impact on the world? One of the unique properties of software is that creating it doesn't have to be a capital intensive affair.

enos_feedler 4y ago
I agree. I was being sarcastic