Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

smbc-comics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#121

Post by Y_Y »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109
Y_Y wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

M: I came here for a good argument! O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! M: An argument isn't just contradiction. O: Well! it CAN be! M: No it can't! M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't!

I was asked for a list of startups that “have provided lasting real solutions and value.” I gave a list and said “pick one.” You pushed back on Deel. I pointed out why they have value. You then pivoted to the non sequitur that I “like Deel.” I pointed out that isn’t true, and never needed to be—this was never a discussion about which start-ups we want to put a sticker on. It’s a bit rich to complain about logical fal…

I wasn't convinced that Deel provided value, though it seemed that that by subjective or semantic means you had reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. My attenpt to boil that down to something pithy didn't do much good, and after your response I felt like the discussion was providing more heat than light, so I used a humorous reference to indicate that I thought we were mostly naysaysing each other.

You haven't changed my mind but you may have changed others' and you did make me think. Let's have an even better discussion next time.

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#122

Post by AbstractH24 »

blitzar wrote: post #118
BobbyJo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both? Most humans on earth are trying to get wealthy, they just don't see a viable path in front of them.

Most humans on earth are trying to survive, they just don't see a viable path in front of them

This comment really points out how this message board and tech in general are not reflective of most humans on earth

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#123

Post by BobbyJo »

blitzar wrote: post #118
BobbyJo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both? Most humans on earth are trying to get wealthy, they just don't see a viable path in front of them.

Most humans on earth are trying to survive, they just don't see a viable path in front of them

Global life expectancy is like 73. Life is hard, but lets not pretend most humans are wandering a wasteland in search of water.

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#124

Post by iancmceachern »

pas wrote: post #115
iancmceachern wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last paragraph paints a dual vision of the world that just isn't accurate. 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 (…

Big business is frighteningly efficient at being BIG. (At least in the US.) https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt ~42% of the workforce is employed at firms with 1000+ headcount. The next biggest bucket is ~10% the 20-49 range. Then ~9.5% is the 100-249 bucket. And the share of biggest ones is (likely unfortunately) growing.

"According to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), 99.9% of businesses in the United States are small businesses, which are defined as independent businesses with fewer than 500 employees. This amounts to around 33.3 million businesses, which employ 61.7 million Americans, or 46.4% of private sector employees. Small businesses are a vital part of the American economy, contributing to economic stability and representing 43.5% of the country's GDP.

Here are some other statistics about small businesses in the United States:

84.8% of businesses in rural areas are small businesses

43.2% of small businesses are owned by women

20% of employer businesses are owned by minorities

Small businesses account for about 96% of employer firms in high-patenting manufacturing industries

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#125

Post by blitzar »

BobbyJo wrote: post #123
blitzar wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most humans on earth are trying to survive, they just don't see a viable path in front of them

Global life expectancy is like 73. Life is hard, but lets not pretend most humans are wandering a wasteland in search of water.

1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water, sure it isn't 'most people' but it is 2.6 billion people.

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#126

Post by tim333 »

bmitc wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> startup world is just a massive pump and dump scheme, and so it moves from field to field finding the next hotness But we retain the solutions that work. A slime mold tries a bunch of useless paths in a maze before it finds the right one. Then it trims and reinforces. Most start-ups failing isn't a sure sign of wasted work.

What startups have provided lasting real solutions and value, not just capitalistic, in say the last decade?

OpenAI? (Founded 2015)

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#127

Post by tim333 »

normie3000 wrote: post #64
jonny_eh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing proved the emperor has no clothes better than the crypto trend.

if anything, crypto seems to have proven that the emperor is happy in his nudity.

The core use of crypto in practice is gambling/speculation. People say that isn't a real business because they don't like it but human nature is what it is. Casinos, lotteries and bookies don't seem to be dying out, or crypto for that matter.

Re: How much money we can raise for transparently idiotic startups?

#128

Post by JohnFen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #106
JohnFen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most start-ups failing isn't a sure sign of wasted work. It pretty much is, yes. Not a sure sign, but SV startups are probably the least efficient way of finding solutions that work. That's not to say that solutions to meaningful problems aren't occasionally found, of course, but the odds are very slim and the amount of money and other resources burned per success is astounding.

> SV startups are probably the least efficient way of finding solutions that work On what metric? By any objective measure, barring the tail end of ZIRP, it’s been remarkably more efficient than many national projects. The point is a VC ecosystem working properly should have a high failure rate. Lots of failures just tells you risk isn’t too low. To measure efficacy and efficiency you have to look at the output. And…

> more efficient than many national projects.

I'm confused by your reference to "national projects" here. What are you comparing to?

It looks incredibly inefficient to me when I compare the billions blown on failed or worthless ventures to get a small number of valuable ones.

Post reply on HN