Rachofsunshine: for what it's worth, I appreciate that there are people who insist on trying to change the market, rather than doing what the market wants. I d

Rachofsunshine: for what it's worth, I appreciate that there are people who insist on trying to change the market, rather than doing what the market wants. I did some early interviews with TripleByte and appreciated they were trying something different. It's just a different kind of effort and it's hard to change people's minds with just money. Often, a grassroots movement arises that slowly changes consensus, over years, and only then some well-funded player can come in, see which way the trends are going, and capture the value. My current startup is so remote we had to move Friday meetings to Thursday to accommodate Japan and Oceania. In my experience the Silicon Valley practices of the 2000s and 2010s already seem antique. So maybe TripleByte they were just early? Or as the post mentions, maybe the funding environment was wrong. We are often told that a loose funding environment encourages new ideas to prosper. But whatever happened in the 2010s with ZIRP seemed to concentrate wealth for people who had already gotten through various gatekeepers. I am sort of in the Silicon Valley ecosystem and sort of not, working remotely for American companies, so this stuff just feels like a distant thunderstorm to me. I can see new graduates getting my salary or higher for doing very basic, mistake-laden work, and I can't figure it out. But this helps put it in context. Anyway, perhaps a downturn is a better time to start trying to change minds, although that's going to be a very long battle and the TAM is going to be "???" for quite a while.