Comment by mobiuscog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mobiuscog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For a long time now, entrepreneurs have been solving the 'convenience' problem, as they have found that it what makes them the most money.

It's not about solving important 'problems' for most - it's about how they can make the most money, and that is usually by providing more convenience to people.

This is, of course, how business works in a capitalist society - the issue is that the problems they solve are often marketed as being the most important, whereas they're just selling a dream.

I'm sure they would solve the major problems if they could and there was sufficient money in it - look at how the drugs companies operate - but this is (and has always been) about money.

Amazon are running their competition for better robot picking - are they also running competitions for how to help people whose jobs are replaced by robots ?

Silicon Valley has a single role - to make (more) money for those people investing into it. That's all. There's little to no philanthropy, and when there is it's generally from people who are already far wealthier than is required to live (an excessively comfortable) life.

Seems obvious, really. The people who have the money to pay others to solve problems for them are likely to have already had all their basic problems taken care of.

Tangentially reminds me of Dave Rossum, founder of synthesizer company E-mu systems, who jokes that the problem with building a business on selling to musicians is that your customers are always broke.

Halfway through your comment I thought of the analogy to drug companies, which solve problems like impotence rather than Ebola because the people with impotence have lots of money and the people with Ebola don't. Worse than even solving the so called first-world-problems, they invest a fair amount of time on "evergreening" which is basically fraud or at the very, very best rent-seeking. Yet, you then used them as an example of an industry solving the big problems.

I meant to use them as an example of monetising the solution of problems - but not necessarily solving problems for money.

They find that they have solved a problem (not necessarily the one they were looking to solve) and then make huge amounts of money in selling the 'solution'. Of course, the majority of their solutions are also for problems of convenience - easing the symptoms but not curing the problem.

I apologise if it came across as supporting them - I am certainly against the monopoly of big pharma, in the same way that GMO is also capitalising on convenience.

Do you find such reductionism to be actually useful outside of self-congratulations for posting politically correct rhetoric? Or, although I doubt it, do you actually believe that's an accurate and intellectually honest summary?

I keep meaning to start a blog that catalogues the many random and bizarre things that are accused of being "politically correct" on HN, but it's the first time it's actually happened directly to me.

Which bit of my comment is politically correct? Or, assuming you're using it in the modern meaning of "something I don't like", I'm still not sure what bit of my comment you didn't like.

Yes, to re-iterate, I think the incentives of drug manufacturers are tilted in many ways including a) towards drugs that serve wealthy customers, b) towards drugs that will be taken every day for the rest of their lives, c) towards drugs that can be protected by patents.

I further think that some of the behaviours in the industry tend towards the unethical, e.g. evergreening a patent-free drug and then using the well catalogued failures of modern science to "prove" that it's better than the patented drug by leaving any negative findings in the file drawer and only publishing the positive ones, and then doing things like withdrawing the older drug from sale and bribing doctors to use the newer drugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening

Quote: "Almost all nations including the United States now have anti-evergreening legislation as part of their public health policy"

I'm continually surprised at the minimization of impotence. Have you imagined never being able to have sex again for life?

Appropriately enough, I've taken a medicine which as one of the side effects, can cause permanent impotence or loss of orgasm, as well as suicide and many other bad things.

It would appear that the evidence for that drug actually being effective in what it seeks to treat is controversial. It seemed clearly better till they realised that the drug companies weren't releasing the studies that showed it in a bad light. Effectively tossing a coin and only revealing they had done so when it matched their preferred outcome.

Never having sex again would definitely suck.

Never having sex again because you're dead sucks more.

Comparing the relative severity of problems, and saying that one is worse than the other, in no way implies that therefore the other problem isn't also a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com