4 ms·

If you get back down to basics, as business is an equitable arrangement where you offer to solve a problem, in exchange for making a profit in the process. At

by RajT88 3y ago

If you get back down to basics, as business is an equitable arrangement where you offer to solve a problem, in exchange for making a profit in the process. At some point, the problem may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to make a profit. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another business. What I would love to see represented is some thinking around what should happen as a matter of best practice when you decide to fold the business. There's likely paying customers left behind - to use an extreme example, let's consider the case of artificial vision where people are left with implants that often no longer work, that nobody will remove: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60416058 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60416058 The right thing for customers of course would be to open source the technology so they can pursue other avenues. The friction with this idea is that, maintaining ownership of the IP might be valuable later (someone may want to buy it, some new opportunity to build on the tech may arise). It would be great if there was a government institution which would compensate such businesses for their tech to open source it.

c54 3y ago
I could imagine something like the Consumer Product Safety Commission tasked with recovering and open sourcing IP from shut down companies with products in people’s hands.
RobotToaster 3y ago
>It would be great if there was a government institution which would compensate such businesses for their tech to open source it. Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? It seems potentially more sensible to pass a law that the IP of any business that fails becomes public domain.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? All businesses who would use such a scheme would be started by friends of politicians and public servants, with the sole goal of getting this tax payer buy-out for worthless IP.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system. It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately. "But then the oversight program will be targeted!" I hear you say. Yes, yes it will. And sometimes by policy makers with undue interest in weakening oversight. Sometimes just infiltrated by monied interests who stand to benefit. None of that is a reason to do nothing.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme. I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. It doesn't mean I suggest doing nothing.
      - RajT88 3y ago
        It is negativity. > Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. This is true. If your requirement is to never implement some system which can be abused (even a little bit), you are against government in any form. If you're not advocating for no government and you're OK with a little bit of abuse, then it's an argument over scale. There will always be some abuse, but the key to any program or system is to minimize the potential for abuse. There's abuse in the US welfare system, but broadly the consensus among anyone but partisan pundits is that the good the system does far outweighs the abuse within the system. > Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme. This is not true, and completely defeatist. If you think the US Government is hopelessly corrupted by vested interests - you have not spent time in a country with a hopelessly corrupt government. The US Government is mildly corrupt, not wildly corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index > I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. More negativity. I can think of far worse solutions than what I have suggested. If you're simply advocating for the private sector to solve the problem instead of the government getting involved, I am wondering where you live where the private sector left to its own devices doesn't rampantly pillage to its heart's content. I'd like to move there!
drstewart 3y ago
>At some point, the problem may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to make a profit. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another business. Does your landlord take pivots as currency? Anyway, I agree but for people complaining about layoffs. At some point, your job may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to take a salary. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another career.

by RajT88 3y ago

c54 3y ago

I could imagine something like the Consumer Product Safety Commission tasked with recovering and open sourcing IP from shut down companies with products in people’s hands.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>It would be great if there was a government institution which would compensate such businesses for their tech to open source it. Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? It seems potentially more sensible to pass a law that the IP of any business that fails becomes public domain.

carlosjobim 3y ago
> Wouldn't that just incentivise more negative behaviour from businesses, since investors would know should they go bust, the government will buy all their IP? All businesses who would use such a scheme would be started by friends of politicians and public servants, with the sole goal of getting this tax payer buy-out for worthless IP.
- RajT88 3y ago
  This sort of negativity you can use to shut down changing anything, about anything, in any system. It's not inappropriate, but it is important to just have it inform the debate instead of ruling the debate. Yes, there should be constraints put in place to limit the potential for abuse, and as well oversight to ensure that people are following those constraints appropriately. "But then the oversight program will be targeted!" I hear you say. Yes, yes it will. And sometimes by policy makers with undue interest in weakening oversight. Sometimes just infiltrated by monied interests who stand to benefit. None of that is a reason to do nothing.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    It's not negativity, it is realism. Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. Abuse is not potential, it is guaranteed - due to the kind of people involved. Especially when business owners can benefit from corruption. Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme. I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. It doesn't mean I suggest doing nothing.
    - RajT88 3y ago
      It is negativity. > Wherever the government gets involved corruption ensues. It is a rule, not an exception. This is true. If your requirement is to never implement some system which can be abused (even a little bit), you are against government in any form. If you're not advocating for no government and you're OK with a little bit of abuse, then it's an argument over scale. There will always be some abuse, but the key to any program or system is to minimize the potential for abuse. There's abuse in the US welfare system, but broadly the consensus among anyone but partisan pundits is that the good the system does far outweighs the abuse within the system. > Strict constraints to deter abuse are always put in place in these programs, and they are always completely inefficient and/or supervised by people who are in on the scheme. This is not true, and completely defeatist. If you think the US Government is hopelessly corrupted by vested interests - you have not spent time in a country with a hopelessly corrupt government. The US Government is mildly corrupt, not wildly corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index > I don't see it as negativity to be against the worst imaginable solution to a problem. More negativity. I can think of far worse solutions than what I have suggested. If you're simply advocating for the private sector to solve the problem instead of the government getting involved, I am wondering where you live where the private sector left to its own devices doesn't rampantly pillage to its heart's content. I'd like to move there!

drstewart 3y ago

>At some point, the problem may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to make a profit. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another business. Does your landlord take pivots as currency? Anyway, I agree but for people complaining about layoffs. At some point, your job may no longer exist, or you may not be able to continue to take a salary. That's OK! You can pivot, or move on to another career.