6 ms·

If you are so inept that copying someone else's codebase wholesale is what makes you a viable company, then perhaps you aren't worthy of investing in. Unless,

If you are so inept that copying someone else's codebase wholesale is what makes you a viable company, then perhaps you aren't worthy of investing in. Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people, which as I type this seems like a sad but unsurprising move.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people Just, Devil's Advocate. But isn't that kind of a smart strategy? Not saying it's "nice", nor even how I would do things. But I'd imagine many, many people get excessively wealthy investing in this fashion.
- drawkward 2y ago
  That's why I pointed it out. It's a perfectly legitimate explanation for this type of behavior. (And, imo, abhorrent and where capitalism-as-harnessing-greed really falls apart.) As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point.
  - tivert 2y ago
    >As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point. I think the externalities may be hard to quantify but they are well-understood by now (and are things like erosion of trust, which you mentioned). Just look at the societal attitudes towards Silicon Valley now vs. 25 years ago. VCs complain about how society now so full of negativity towards technology, but they only have themselves to blame for that. They shit the bed, and people got wise.
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  I’ve never looked into it deeply, but as I understand it the opposite is true. I’ve read in passing that statistically the most successful sales people are kind, insightful and find ways to align with their customers best interests. Likewise, I’ve also read in passing that economies with cultures of respect and collaboration far outperform ones that are very competitive. Maybe someone has more information about those topics that me?
CharlieDigital 2y ago
> Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people This is exactly what VCs are looking for. They are going to hand you a check worth several hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They are not doing this because it's a charity; they are doing this because they are making a bet that they'll get some return on that investment. This is the purpose of a VC: to deploy capital in a way that is likely to yield the greatest returns for the investors.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Spoken as if there was only one single binary option for investment! The strategy implies that the marginal value of the lack of ethics/the personality type to do that is the thing thats worth investment. If thats true, then venture capitalism and perhaps capitalism itself is super fucked: a machine for developing and rewarding the worst impulses of humanity.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    Investors cheer when Uber, Lyft, and UPS drivers are treated as contractors. They frown when they try to advocate for more rights, better employment conditions, and better pay. Such is the nature of modern capitalism. The Costco's and James Sinegal's of the world are few and rare; I wish we'd see more companies and leadership teams that valued labor and were more ethical. But a survey of the most successful CEO's (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al) and companies leads us to believe that such principles are often opposed to the machinations of capitalism.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > capitalism It's business under the laws, regulations, customs, and choices of American business in 2024. I say that because, while 'capitalism' is a significant element, many people (not you) justify or rationalize their behavior or the current 'system' by asserting it's a law of human nature or economics, not their choices that yield their behavior and the system, and both can change. It's like criminals who say 'hate the game, not the player'. Inevitability is a lazy argument for lazy thinkers and irresponsible people (again, to emphasize, the parent didn't make it). It's the corruption of power - they can do what they want, and therefore nobody can compel them to think harder and get better results. So I think it's essential to draw the distinction. > (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al) Other than Ellison, even the others didn't act this way a decade ago. Silicon Valley was built by a different ethos - 'don't be evil'. Power corrupts.
phil21 2y ago
> Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people This was probably the hardest realization I came to in business/startup world. That's precisely what most investors (at least the ones with any large amount of money) look for. They could care less if your product is good, or if you developed it ethically, or if you treat employees or customers well. Most would invest in the next Oracle and sleep like babies if given the chance to get in early - even if they had a crystal ball to see how badly it will impact the industry and social fabric as a whole down the road 20 years later. Especially VCs. They exist to make money. Full stop. The rest is marketing fluff for the naive masses.
collingreen 2y ago
Copying everything EXCEPT the license - they knew THAT needed to change at least.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Good point.

bilbo0s 2y ago

Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people Just, Devil's Advocate. But isn't that kind of a smart strategy? Not saying it's "nice", nor even how I would do things. But I'd imagine many, many people get excessively wealthy investing in this fashion.

drawkward 2y ago
That's why I pointed it out. It's a perfectly legitimate explanation for this type of behavior. (And, imo, abhorrent and where capitalism-as-harnessing-greed really falls apart.) As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point.
- tivert 2y ago
  >As for "smart," I assume there are some not well understood externalities to this kind of behavior, such as erosion of trust or other social ills that are hard to quantify until they reach a critical point. I think the externalities may be hard to quantify but they are well-understood by now (and are things like erosion of trust, which you mentioned). Just look at the societal attitudes towards Silicon Valley now vs. 25 years ago. VCs complain about how society now so full of negativity towards technology, but they only have themselves to blame for that. They shit the bed, and people got wise.
mlhpdx 2y ago
I’ve never looked into it deeply, but as I understand it the opposite is true. I’ve read in passing that statistically the most successful sales people are kind, insightful and find ways to align with their customers best interests. Likewise, I’ve also read in passing that economies with cultures of respect and collaboration far outperform ones that are very competitive. Maybe someone has more information about those topics that me?

CharlieDigital 2y ago

> Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people This is exactly what VCs are looking for. They are going to hand you a check worth several hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They are not doing this because it's a charity; they are doing this because they are making a bet that they'll get some return on that investment. This is the purpose of a VC: to deploy capital in a way that is likely to yield the greatest returns for the investors.

drawkward 2y ago
Spoken as if there was only one single binary option for investment! The strategy implies that the marginal value of the lack of ethics/the personality type to do that is the thing thats worth investment. If thats true, then venture capitalism and perhaps capitalism itself is super fucked: a machine for developing and rewarding the worst impulses of humanity.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  Investors cheer when Uber, Lyft, and UPS drivers are treated as contractors. They frown when they try to advocate for more rights, better employment conditions, and better pay. Such is the nature of modern capitalism. The Costco's and James Sinegal's of the world are few and rare; I wish we'd see more companies and leadership teams that valued labor and were more ethical. But a survey of the most successful CEO's (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al) and companies leads us to believe that such principles are often opposed to the machinations of capitalism.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > capitalism It's business under the laws, regulations, customs, and choices of American business in 2024. I say that because, while 'capitalism' is a significant element, many people (not you) justify or rationalize their behavior or the current 'system' by asserting it's a law of human nature or economics, not their choices that yield their behavior and the system, and both can change. It's like criminals who say 'hate the game, not the player'. Inevitability is a lazy argument for lazy thinkers and irresponsible people (again, to emphasize, the parent didn't make it). It's the corruption of power - they can do what they want, and therefore nobody can compel them to think harder and get better results. So I think it's essential to draw the distinction. > (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al) Other than Ellison, even the others didn't act this way a decade ago. Silicon Valley was built by a different ethos - 'don't be evil'. Power corrupts.

phil21 2y ago

> Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people This was probably the hardest realization I came to in business/startup world. That's precisely what most investors (at least the ones with any large amount of money) look for. They could care less if your product is good, or if you developed it ethically, or if you treat employees or customers well. Most would invest in the next Oracle and sleep like babies if given the chance to get in early - even if they had a crystal ball to see how badly it will impact the industry and social fabric as a whole down the road 20 years later. Especially VCs. They exist to make money. Full stop. The rest is marketing fluff for the naive masses.

collingreen 2y ago

Copying everything EXCEPT the license - they knew THAT needed to change at least.

drawkward 2y ago
Good point.