this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
1036 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
3821 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 76 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I think the whole system of venture capital might be garbage. We have bros spending millions of dollars like gif sharing while the oceans boil, our schools rot, and our infrastructure rusts or is sold off. Or, I guess I'm just indicting capitalism more generally. But having a few bros decide what to fund based on gutfeel and powerpoints seems like a particularly malignant form.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You think it might be??

Bro say that shit with some confidence.

Venture capital does not contribute beneficially to society.

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Say it with your whole chest and both feet. Cuz it's true.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Venture Capital is probably the best way to drain the billionaires. Those billions in capital weren't wasted, that money just went to pay people who do actual work for a living. What good is all that money doing just sitting in some hedge fund account?

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's the best way out of all possible options. Even if it does "create jobs", a lot of those jobs aren't producing much of wider value, and most of the wealth stays in the hands of the ownership class. And a lot of the jobs are exploitive, like how "gig workers" are often treated.

Changes to tax law and enforcing anti-trust stuff would probably be more effective. We probably shouldn't have bogus high finance shenanigans either. We definitely shouldn't have billionaires.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Oh sure, I was mostly being flippant. My response to the article is basically that billionaires losing billions is a good thing. I don't feel optimistic enough to say we'll get around to taxing them but yes, that would be ideal.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I think you have a point here. Venture capitalists buy in the primary market. They are directly impacting innovation.

Fund managers (both hedge and long only) merely help capital markets to be liquid. Their money doesn't directly go to anyone actually creating something.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The world is burning and the rich know this so they are desperate to multiply their money and secure their luxury survival bunkers, which is why they are gambling harder.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I think I read about Zucker building a bunker in hawaii. Hopefully he dies before he can enjoy it.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not just fuckerberg, EVERY billionaire is doing it and desperately pumping their billionaire friends for tips and suggestions on things like 'keeping guards loyal for multiple generations', and 'what commodities to hoard for trading after the collapse'.

One of the sites I used to support was a high-end automation service, normally for factory equipment and biotech but pivoted to luxury home automation (no IoT devices, all site hosted with aerospace grade equipment), and they have been running at 100% for the last seven years deploying to ultra wealthy residential estates where the location is not disclosed.

The wealthy are expecting us to rise up within the next decade and a half, and I think they're probably right.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I remember seeing memes about this. I think it was the "boss throws guy out the window" template.

  • "How can we keep our guards loyal? Drug them? Bomb collars?"
  • "Maybe you could pay them and treat them with dignity and respect"

Personally I think we should start a campaign of jury nullification and "if you're an EMT, and they're a billionaire, let them die", but I'm just one guy.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The current ferment in the billionaire community is that 'starting a religion based on the family and offering marriage partners from within the family as a promise of social mobility' is the safest method of guaranteeing loyalty, so really they're just making micromonarchies.

Treating them 'with dignity and respect' isn't going to last very long as eventually the family guards will have members that covet the family's wealth, resources, members, and well since they are guards they have access to all the weapons. Also: almost zero billionaires have respect for anyone who is not also a billionaire.

I agree with your campaign, though I would take it a step further and suggest we should just drag them all into the street and mulch them into fertile soil so the world can begin to heal.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah I think it's impossible to treat people with dignity and respect indefinitely while also hoarding wealth like a dragon.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

The situation where it's still profitable to invest this way means that there's some cross-flow of value from real to this which shouldn't exist.

I dunno which. Maybe government handouts to corps, for example.

Or ads revenue from any engaging activity, not only good, made huge because of oligopolies.

Or closing holes with currency emission.

It shouldn't be possible otherwise.