7 ms·

Saying that our industry's mind share is being wasted on web apps is myopic. That statement is ignoring the numerous and iterative improvements to society throu

by Ixiaus 13y ago

Saying that our industry's mind share is being wasted on web apps is myopic. That statement is ignoring the numerous and iterative improvements to society through products and systems created to solve business and personal and social problems or inefficiencies. Not to mention the legitimately innovative technology invented and brought to market every year. I survived through the Techstars Austin program and have been apart of the Austin startup scene for quite some time and what many of the entrepreneurs, whether small or big, are doing is much more important as whole than what your statement implies. You should see the list of companies selected for the 1776 Cup; some were "appy" (but solving REAL problems!), others were hard science (new form of carbon to make capacitors more efficient to replace batteries), and some were humane (cheap, portable, and easy to build housing for displaced people).

jjoonathan 13y ago
No, I don't think that stepping back and saying "this allocation of resources stinks" is myopic. Not unless you have so much faith in our resource allocation system that you excuse it from the need to justify itself. In fact, I think it's myopic to assume that a business has justified its existence solely on the basis that it has experienced success on the market. A method to make a well-to-do individual or company even more well-to-do, despite a 2x or 10x cost to the competition or to society, is a winning business proposition. "Create the problem, sell the cure" is a valid business model. Feeding the poor is not. Like most of us here, I believe that in total the market is a force for good, but let's please not pretend that market forces are self-justifying or beyond reproach. In an adversarial system, the solution to one person's "real problem" can be a real monster to the rest of us. We have to make the good/evil call on our own. Most of us are familiar with the game-theoretic concept of Nash Equilibrium and how, with the right rules, you can drive a local optimization scheme* to a globally anti-optimal outcome (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma). Since our economy runs on a local optimization scheme, it's entirely reasonable to wonder if there are any market segments where the Nash Equilibrium is particularly objectionable. The marketing industry is a great example. I've heard it claimed that its purpose in society is to convey information to the consumer. But that's not how it makes money. It makes money by attracting customers, and indeed the ads that you and I see every day are so acutely tuned to this goal, to the near total exclusion of all others, that I doubt there are many of us who believe that watching ads helps the average person make better business decisions. "Captain Morgan has the best brand of rum!" and "Dawny makes the softest tissues" are not messages that are of any use to society. Just the opposite -- they're probably false or, at best, misleading. Both customers and manufacturers would benefit from cutting the advertisers out of the equation. But they can't, because that's not a Nash equilibrium, and so the arms race continues. It's not as expensive as the actual wars we are fighting, but it's not too far off either. Look, you're right that the whole "all industry does is churn out socially worthless CRUD apps" criticism is unfair. Industry has solved (and will solve) an enormous number of practical problems. But it's not myopic to notice when a business empire is built on a strategy of dubious social value or to notice when the market is systematically undervaluing some kind of human activity. Those things happen, and it's reasonable to complain when a petty/artificial "real problem" gets enshrined while the most glaring "real problems" get swept under the rug. The scientific and humane startups you mentioned sound like steps in the right direction. I just hope that they experience a nonzero success rate. Market forces have a long and ignominious history of serving those sectors poorly. I don't have any great answers (apart from the obvious "don't defund science or social nets"), but the only way we can hope to find better options is by identifying what's wasteful, calling it that, and trying to figure out new ways to address the problem. * While I sincerely apologize to any game theorists who object to my inaccurate terminology, I must point out that it was you guys who decided to call this kind of optimization "greedy."
- Ixiaus 13y ago
  The "allocation of resources", while influenced by many factors I don't care to debate about in this comment (politics, lobbying, uber wealthy, all of those sticky topics), is largely determined by market forces and your statement that the market's allocation is a waste is shortsighted because an environment in which someone decided what people should or should not be working on is an environment I want no part in. I also think, despite its many warts, our environment (that of the USA and the tech / startup industry) is an arena within which agents can operate competitively and towards their own ends. Is what we are doing the right way to do it for everyone? I'm not sure and it's also not my place to make that sort of judgement. But I do know it is working exceedingly well for many of us, improving the quality of life and advancing the state of our society.
  - Ixiaus 13y ago
    Downvotes but no arguments? Is this reddit pitchforking?
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    > The "allocation of resources" is largely determined by market forces Yes, I understand that. Sometimes this leads to a healthy, competitive environment with some seriously awesome features (the ability to replace incumbents, supply/demand matching, abundant opportunity, etc). But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does crazy, stupid, wasteful things. Sometimes market forces are smarter than political forces in that they force people to deal rationally with unpleasant truths. Sometimes markets are dumb as bricks and create unpleasant truths all on their own. My post did not propose any form of socialism. In fact, it didn't propose any solution at all. My post merely asked you to not pretend that the market's shit doesn't stink. > your statement that the market's allocation is a waste is shortsighted because an environment in which someone decided what people should or should not be working on is an environment I want no part in. I don't see how your desires relate to the shortsightedness of the plan I never proposed. > I do know it is working exceedingly well Is that a base rate fallacy or a "screw you, I have mine"? I can't tell.
    - 13y ago

by Ixiaus 13y ago

jjoonathan 13y ago

No, I don't think that stepping back and saying "this allocation of resources stinks" is myopic. Not unless you have so much faith in our resource allocation system that you excuse it from the need to justify itself. In fact, I think it's myopic to assume that a business has justified its existence solely on the basis that it has experienced success on the market. A method to make a well-to-do individual or company even more well-to-do, despite a 2x or 10x cost to the competition or to society, is a winning business proposition. "Create the problem, sell the cure" is a valid business model. Feeding the poor is not. Like most of us here, I believe that in total the market is a force for good, but let's please not pretend that market forces are self-justifying or beyond reproach. In an adversarial system, the solution to one person's "real problem" can be a real monster to the rest of us. We have to make the good/evil call on our own. Most of us are familiar with the game-theoretic concept of Nash Equilibrium and how, with the right rules, you can drive a local optimization scheme* to a globally anti-optimal outcome (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma). Since our economy runs on a local optimization scheme, it's entirely reasonable to wonder if there are any market segments where the Nash Equilibrium is particularly objectionable. The marketing industry is a great example. I've heard it claimed that its purpose in society is to convey information to the consumer. But that's not how it makes money. It makes money by attracting customers, and indeed the ads that you and I see every day are so acutely tuned to this goal, to the near total exclusion of all others, that I doubt there are many of us who believe that watching ads helps the average person make better business decisions. "Captain Morgan has the best brand of rum!" and "Dawny makes the softest tissues" are not messages that are of any use to society. Just the opposite -- they're probably false or, at best, misleading. Both customers and manufacturers would benefit from cutting the advertisers out of the equation. But they can't, because that's not a Nash equilibrium, and so the arms race continues. It's not as expensive as the actual wars we are fighting, but it's not too far off either. Look, you're right that the whole "all industry does is churn out socially worthless CRUD apps" criticism is unfair. Industry has solved (and will solve) an enormous number of practical problems. But it's not myopic to notice when a business empire is built on a strategy of dubious social value or to notice when the market is systematically undervaluing some kind of human activity. Those things happen, and it's reasonable to complain when a petty/artificial "real problem" gets enshrined while the most glaring "real problems" get swept under the rug. The scientific and humane startups you mentioned sound like steps in the right direction. I just hope that they experience a nonzero success rate. Market forces have a long and ignominious history of serving those sectors poorly. I don't have any great answers (apart from the obvious "don't defund science or social nets"), but the only way we can hope to find better options is by identifying what's wasteful, calling it that, and trying to figure out new ways to address the problem. * While I sincerely apologize to any game theorists who object to my inaccurate terminology, I must point out that it was you guys who decided to call this kind of optimization "greedy."

Ixiaus 13y ago
The "allocation of resources", while influenced by many factors I don't care to debate about in this comment (politics, lobbying, uber wealthy, all of those sticky topics), is largely determined by market forces and your statement that the market's allocation is a waste is shortsighted because an environment in which someone decided what people should or should not be working on is an environment I want no part in. I also think, despite its many warts, our environment (that of the USA and the tech / startup industry) is an arena within which agents can operate competitively and towards their own ends. Is what we are doing the right way to do it for everyone? I'm not sure and it's also not my place to make that sort of judgement. But I do know it is working exceedingly well for many of us, improving the quality of life and advancing the state of our society.
- Ixiaus 13y ago
  Downvotes but no arguments? Is this reddit pitchforking?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > The "allocation of resources" is largely determined by market forces Yes, I understand that. Sometimes this leads to a healthy, competitive environment with some seriously awesome features (the ability to replace incumbents, supply/demand matching, abundant opportunity, etc). But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does crazy, stupid, wasteful things. Sometimes market forces are smarter than political forces in that they force people to deal rationally with unpleasant truths. Sometimes markets are dumb as bricks and create unpleasant truths all on their own. My post did not propose any form of socialism. In fact, it didn't propose any solution at all. My post merely asked you to not pretend that the market's shit doesn't stink. > your statement that the market's allocation is a waste is shortsighted because an environment in which someone decided what people should or should not be working on is an environment I want no part in. I don't see how your desires relate to the shortsightedness of the plan I never proposed. > I do know it is working exceedingly well Is that a base rate fallacy or a "screw you, I have mine"? I can't tell.
  - 13y ago