How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

There are the two you mentioned: 1- small businesses that go out of business after a few years 2- ...ones that become big chains

But you are forgetting #3, the one that actually makes up the largest proportion of businesses: 3- people that quietly, successfully, run their businesses in a sustainable, family and community oriented manner (not financial growth focused but personal growth focused) and then retire quietly surrounded by loved ones.

I wonder how frequently startups and hype KILL technologies. A technology starts to show progress, everyone gets excited about that progress, tons of money gets dumped in, everyone rushes to put that technology into production, technology flops, funding for technology dries up. Meanwhile, a lot of people got very rich, so we repeat the cycle. But there was an important step missed here if we want a technology to actually succeed. Research.

The hype train only seems to gear up for technologies that are still in their infancies. This of course makes sense, because how else do you raise money? Chicken and the egg. But the problem here is that you're not using that money to solve the problems with the tech and get it to the point where it could then be effectively used in things, but instead rush to hamfist it into everything you can. Sometimes you gotta slow down first, and prep for the sprint. Google seems to be the worst at this, routinely killing projects that 5-10 years later are then sold as high status items. A company with that much capital doesn't need to rush to market, you can strategize and take your time.

The problem is that the details always matter and they can be a huge make it or break it for a technology. You can generate all the safe miles you want, but if you run through a red light anytime there's a child holding a green balloon a bit too high, you failed. You can build fancy games, but if you promise a holodeck and deliver a hollowdeck, people are reasonably upset. Hype is a double edged sword. You need some to get people on board, but too much and you overpromise. You can build crazy and legitimately helpful tools, but if you're (or others) are promising 10x what you can, then when they get their hands on it they have every right to be upset. Even if the thing is still useful to them and betters their lives. They are rightfully upset, but they'll unrightfully dismiss what you made. So the people who benefit from the hype cycles are the grifters. The ones willing to jump from one thing to the next. Which is why I'm always very confused why we prop up people who have "expertise" in all the last hype bubbles as if it is credentializing why they are experts in the new hype bubble. How does a giant and brilliant red flag get interpreted as green? Maybe we're not so different from self-driving cars after all.

Get good feedback early & often

This is sort of like saying the iPod was a better Walkman. Yes, you could functionally do the same thing. But no, it wasn't as easy which meant it wasn't as frequently done. (And as a result of pressure from the upstarts, payroll across the board became smoother.)

> Just because they interact with employment doesn't mean they're as important as the whole concept

Nobody said that. I said "their impact is meaningful to the degree employment is." To the people whose roles exist on account of platforms like Deel, their existence is meaningful.