4 ms·

It really is astonishing how the most idiotic services gain so many users by "going viral." And it just motivates more hackers to work on being the next Snapcha

It really is astonishing how the most idiotic services gain so many users by "going viral." And it just motivates more hackers to work on being the next Snapchat or Instagram rather than putting in the effort to solve the real problems that plague our society.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
interstitial 13y ago
Your assuming the real problems that plague society are not based on the success of Snapchat and Instagram. I think they are. Narcissism.
nostromo 13y ago
Coca-Cola's valuation is 170 billion. Not only do they not solve any real problems, they actually create them. Same goes for every oil company in existence. If you want to change the world in a more serious way, SnapChat's valuation should have as much of an impact on your determination as Coca-Cola's.
- jbackus 13y ago
  >[Coca-Cola does] not solve any real problems huh? Providing value in a market has nothing to do having some direct and profound impact on society. They make drinks people like and are willing to pay for.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- tomkin 13y ago
  Coca-Cola isn't an idea, it's sugar water, something people have enjoyed for decades. SnapChat is a service that requires very little infrastructure when compared to Coca-Cola. Not to mention thousands of employed people vs a handful. Watching a bunch of critical thinkers, developers and startups pull at straws trying to defend ridiculous payouts, evaluations and utopian end-games sounds more like 2009-era stock broker talk than it does anything positive or revolutionary.
- Permit 13y ago
  >Same goes for every oil company in existence. We owe the 20th century and virtually every convenience in our lives to the existence of petro-chemicals. There is absolutely no justification that oil companies "don't solve real problems". I would go so far as to claim petro-chemicals are the single most important discovery in human history. (There are certainly downsides in the form of global warming, pollution and environmental damage, but you've completely ignored the massive upside).
  - nostromo 13y ago
    I agree. That sentence was more about how very-valuable companies can not only be frivolous and create economic value (Coke), but can create real problems while creating economic value (Exxon). It wasn't phrased perfectly, but I'll leave it now since several people have responded.
    - awakeasleep 13y ago
      It's easier to nit-pick your post than to disagree with the substance of it.
      - hnriot 13y ago
        but it wasn't a nit-pik, the post "Same goes for every oil company in existence." is just wrong, however well meaning it was.
- pablasso 13y ago
  >Same goes for every oil company in existence I don't know what to say if you don't think oil solves real problems.
BadCookie 13y ago
It's not as if we can cure diseases or solve poverty by writing code. I wish we could. What is a "real problem that plagues society" that a hacker could feasibly solve? I would really like to know.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  We can't? There are many ways software can be applied to "real" problems. Folding@Home[1] is one of the oldest examples of this. It is a distributed computing network that uses brute force to crack protein folding, which is imperative in our understanding and curing of many conditions. It also makes it easy for the everyman to contribute their computing power to the task. We literally can help cure diseases by writing code. [1] http://folding.stanford.edu/ http://folding.stanford.edu/
  - BadCookie 13y ago
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Of course code can be a very useful tool for people with expertise in other areas. I'm asking about what sort of problem a couple of typical hackers who are trying to start a business could feasibly tackle. Folding@Home is not a business, and requires more expertise in biology to build than most of us possess. My point is that it's not like a bunch of us are trying to decide between building the next SnapChat or curing cancer, and only choosing the former because it's a faster way to get rich.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - cheesylard 13y ago
      That's mostly a problem with the current laws in place, which encourage the creation of these frivolous services. For example, let's say piracy was legal, who would need to get a new job? Software developers, filmmakers and musicians, mostly. If you think about it, the only reason why musicians/software developers make any money at all is because threat that we will be thrown in jail if we pirate the product (and the culture that "piracy is bad"). Given, there are trivial ways of getting around this barrier, but the fact of the matter is that nobody can officially sponsor a centralized service that you pay for that pirates content and make it extremely convenient. If piracy was legal, the free software movement would have the most ground, because most people wouldn't be making any money off of the software anyway. Microsoft would go bankrupt. Apple probably would suffer a huge hit, but they would probably survive due to the fact that they manufacture their own hardware. So both would likely release the source code to the public if they want to hold any market share at all. People would be able to legally sell jailbroken iPhones and Android phones with cyanogenmod installed by default for a fraction of the cost. And provide support. Nobody would be making these shitty iPhone game apps like Candy Crush because there would be no money in it. Instead they would be making software for individual companies that are solving actual problems, like those self-checkout machines at the grocery stores for example. Most software development would instead be a hobby instead of being completely overvalued the way it currently is.
bentcorner 13y ago
Like how teenagers are drawn to news about Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber (good news or bad), programmers are drawn to rare successes that are outside the norm. It's fun to look at celebrity tech culture (just like it is to read the covers of the trashy mags at the checkout counters at your grocery store). Just because we see news like this doesn't mean that important, interesting, valuable work that helps people isn't being done somewhere else.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

interstitial 13y ago

Your assuming the real problems that plague society are not based on the success of Snapchat and Instagram. I think they are. Narcissism.

nostromo 13y ago

Coca-Cola's valuation is 170 billion. Not only do they not solve any real problems, they actually create them. Same goes for every oil company in existence. If you want to change the world in a more serious way, SnapChat's valuation should have as much of an impact on your determination as Coca-Cola's.

jbackus 13y ago
>[Coca-Cola does] not solve any real problems huh? Providing value in a market has nothing to do having some direct and profound impact on society. They make drinks people like and are willing to pay for.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tomkin 13y ago
Coca-Cola isn't an idea, it's sugar water, something people have enjoyed for decades. SnapChat is a service that requires very little infrastructure when compared to Coca-Cola. Not to mention thousands of employed people vs a handful. Watching a bunch of critical thinkers, developers and startups pull at straws trying to defend ridiculous payouts, evaluations and utopian end-games sounds more like 2009-era stock broker talk than it does anything positive or revolutionary.
Permit 13y ago
>Same goes for every oil company in existence. We owe the 20th century and virtually every convenience in our lives to the existence of petro-chemicals. There is absolutely no justification that oil companies "don't solve real problems". I would go so far as to claim petro-chemicals are the single most important discovery in human history. (There are certainly downsides in the form of global warming, pollution and environmental damage, but you've completely ignored the massive upside).
- nostromo 13y ago
  I agree. That sentence was more about how very-valuable companies can not only be frivolous and create economic value (Coke), but can create real problems while creating economic value (Exxon). It wasn't phrased perfectly, but I'll leave it now since several people have responded.
  - awakeasleep 13y ago
    It's easier to nit-pick your post than to disagree with the substance of it.
    - hnriot 13y ago
      but it wasn't a nit-pik, the post "Same goes for every oil company in existence." is just wrong, however well meaning it was.
pablasso 13y ago
>Same goes for every oil company in existence I don't know what to say if you don't think oil solves real problems.

BadCookie 13y ago

It's not as if we can cure diseases or solve poverty by writing code. I wish we could. What is a "real problem that plagues society" that a hacker could feasibly solve? I would really like to know.

potatolicious 13y ago
We can't? There are many ways software can be applied to "real" problems. Folding@Home[1] is one of the oldest examples of this. It is a distributed computing network that uses brute force to crack protein folding, which is imperative in our understanding and curing of many conditions. It also makes it easy for the everyman to contribute their computing power to the task. We literally can help cure diseases by writing code. [1] http://folding.stanford.edu/ http://folding.stanford.edu/
- BadCookie 13y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't clear. Of course code can be a very useful tool for people with expertise in other areas. I'm asking about what sort of problem a couple of typical hackers who are trying to start a business could feasibly tackle. Folding@Home is not a business, and requires more expertise in biology to build than most of us possess. My point is that it's not like a bunch of us are trying to decide between building the next SnapChat or curing cancer, and only choosing the former because it's a faster way to get rich.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - cheesylard 13y ago
    That's mostly a problem with the current laws in place, which encourage the creation of these frivolous services. For example, let's say piracy was legal, who would need to get a new job? Software developers, filmmakers and musicians, mostly. If you think about it, the only reason why musicians/software developers make any money at all is because threat that we will be thrown in jail if we pirate the product (and the culture that "piracy is bad"). Given, there are trivial ways of getting around this barrier, but the fact of the matter is that nobody can officially sponsor a centralized service that you pay for that pirates content and make it extremely convenient. If piracy was legal, the free software movement would have the most ground, because most people wouldn't be making any money off of the software anyway. Microsoft would go bankrupt. Apple probably would suffer a huge hit, but they would probably survive due to the fact that they manufacture their own hardware. So both would likely release the source code to the public if they want to hold any market share at all. People would be able to legally sell jailbroken iPhones and Android phones with cyanogenmod installed by default for a fraction of the cost. And provide support. Nobody would be making these shitty iPhone game apps like Candy Crush because there would be no money in it. Instead they would be making software for individual companies that are solving actual problems, like those self-checkout machines at the grocery stores for example. Most software development would instead be a hobby instead of being completely overvalued the way it currently is.

bentcorner 13y ago

Like how teenagers are drawn to news about Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber (good news or bad), programmers are drawn to rare successes that are outside the norm. It's fun to look at celebrity tech culture (just like it is to read the covers of the trashy mags at the checkout counters at your grocery store). Just because we see news like this doesn't mean that important, interesting, valuable work that helps people isn't being done somewhere else.