Hacker News Reader

Comment by hughesjj | Hacker News Reader

Iirc most of the devs are building the features that users actively hate like like chats and live streams etc. The tiktokification. Also, ads, of course.

Still though yeah I'd imagine a minority of that number are devs.

View on HN

Exhibit A: https://nft.reddit.com/

'highly collectible'

Thanks for the laugh.

Best part of the free money ending has been all the blockchain weenies scattering to the bankruptcy winds.

Annoyingly they moved into shilling stupid AI ventures which is frustrating a AI has real, legitimate uses in its current form. Now we have a bunch of shills acting like we’ve achieved AGI if only you’d invest in their GPT chatbot

They also moved back to their normal ponzi and mlm schemes that they've always been doing.

Are they actually the same people? Regardless, as you say, AI does actually have some real useful purpose. Blockchain was a scam from start to finish.

Are those prices on the "recently sold" things really on the order of $100k or I got something wrong?

Someone paid ~$406,000 for the first reddit NFT card in 2021 *and just those four on the page made reddit $1,079,265

So if all the engineering team that made those NFT's did was get that revenue, then financially at least, it was well worth the investment for reddit.

This seems like the problem with capitalism. You start with a company that is providing a great service using 25 people. But it does well so throwing money at it can make it better (and worth more), right?

But not everything has to be worth a lot of money. You could just keep being a great community and double digit employees.

Reddit was profitable way back. Capitalism would have allowed it to continue on in this state perpetually. Spez got greedy and wanted more money though.

Exactly, this was what I was trying to say. Being sustainable can be enough, it doesn’t have to be the next Meta.

I think this is where it's helpful to draw a line between regular capitalism and the late-stage hypercapitalism we've descended into these days.

My rule of thumb is that it's the difference between "we provide a service or make a product, and if we do it well, then we make money" and "we make money, as much as possible, however possible, and if we have to provide a service or make a product to do it, that's a necessary evil".

I wonder if another way to phrase the distinction would be whether the company's primary goal is to sell a product or service for a profit; or to manage financial instruments, such as a stock price or IPO or debt to some VCs or other investors.

It's not a perfect method, but it seems private company (with no intent to IPO and not a VC funded startup) vs public company seems to be a pretty good indicator of what a companies priorities tend to be.

Isn't the underlying issue one of misaligned incentives, control over resources, and sheer incompetence? This particular expression may be a capitalist flavor, but I am skeptical any economic system prevents or corrects for this.

Forcing hyper/non-sustainable growth and then trying to IPO before the crash-and-burn phase is just SOOO much more profitable for everyone involved than continuing to run a good product that is profitable.

If your company is bringing in $100M in profit and you own 10% of the company, it will take you 100 years to make $1B. If you IPO at a $10B valuation and own 10% of the company...

I would work 3 years, save 2 of the 3 million, and retire on my $60-80k a year passive income.

The counterpoint to this is something like Craigslist which has not changed much since its inception and I think is perfect for what it is, but has been overtaken by Facebook marketplace.

My understanding is that Craigslist is still making a tidy profit, and it's owners do well. Sure, they might not need to testify in front of congress or buy all their neighbors land so they can have privacy, but most people consider that a plus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com