Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | larinzod's comments login

>Anytime the government does anything, it is not to help you or me.

This is a Regan Republican era talking point. Government is supposed to work for the people but for the last 40 years it has been used as a boogieman to push agendas which are actively not in the interest of the people.

In the US much harm has been done by under staffing and purposely slashing budgets of organizations that benefit the people. The amplification of "government doesn't help" comes from those regulated by the government. OSHA enforcing safe working environments? "Government meddling in my business driving my costs up!" IRS auditing, catching tax cheats, and closing loopholes? "Government stealing my hard earned profits!" Look at the attacks on the EPA since they are trying to protect vulnerable waterways that property developers want exploit and manufactures want to dump into.

So let's fund and staff the FTC and let it go after all of them. We need government in our corner going after the Banks, Big Tech, Oil, Commercial Agriculture, Pharma, etc.

The narrative needs to change so we aren't dealing with these issues in a reactive way.


I feel they should do the same with the Like button. There is cognitive bias towards crowd approval/disapproval. But they aren't likely to implement that since it would cut revenue from the "we'll I'll watch this suggestion since 100K people liked it" group. Where removing the Dislike just works in their favor.


So it turns out that generations of parents blaming their children for all their grey hairs were actually right? Someone out there is having a vindicating "I told you so" moment.


Aye, nothing like investor pressure and quarterly growth targets to kill an otherwise good company/product.


This is how tech startups work, isn't it? Use investors to build a product with no business model, then the founders cash out via purchase or IPO, and soon after the fact that you have no business model comes to light and the product falls apart trying to find a business model, while users move on to the next shiny thing with no business model.


Glad I'm not the only one thinking this. Seems obvious, but I always felt like I was missing something. How is it that most of the tech/SV world is just the same con being run over and over again, yet it keeps working? Does it operate on the same psychological glitch as a lottery? Do the giant corps buying these startups all think "I know how it's been in the past, but surely THIS startup WON'T turn to shit the moment I buy it because it was never a real business to begin with! This time for sure!"

Or are the real suckers the investors, and the corps are just doing these purchases in a performative capacity to keep razzle-dazzling them?


A lot of actual profits have been made by mature tech companies. Valuations seem too high right now, but I don’t think it’s a giant fraud. More like there’s nothing better to invest in.


The real answer is that you should be selling these works of fiction on the Nasdaq too.


Have you read through any of Facebook’s recent 10-Ks?


If they're that bad, what keeps the stock price propped up and the morale high?


Some acquisitions are just to eliminate potential competitors.


Yes, the model is entirely built on acquisitions, where discord itself can't be profitable, but part of Microsoft it can deliver value by deepening the mote around everything else.

Many things are only valuable as a public good or part of monopoly. Such is funny relationship between monopolization and socialism.


Discord has a business model: Get people engaged in a community, sell them Nitro so they can boost their communities [1][2]. The "buy benefits for you community" scheme is wildly successful in mobile games, so I wouldn't be surprised if it works well for Discord.

1: https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360028038352-S...

2: https://discord.com/nitro


The fact that they are trying to sell/IPO is pretty strong evidence that they are not profitable, I think. But regardless, I will give them massive props for not just doing the ad thing, which is the last gasp of this style of startup before they finish circling the drain. Lookin' at you, Imgur.


I would in all honesty give them even bigger props, as someone who used to be but isn't a fan anymore. They tried to add a game store a la steam into it but realized it didn't get the engagement they'd hoped for so they stopped putting time and effort into it and shut it down.

My first impression when they first added it was that they'd just shove it down people's throats and keep trying to make it work.

I hope I'm not wrong about them getting rid of it again and I've just gotten used to tuning all that out when using discord.


Imgur has had ads since a couple months after launch. Nearly 98% of Imgur's lifespan has had ads.


In the last ~6 months, Imgur added forced video ads when uploading new images: https://www.resetera.com/threads/hmm-so-we-now-have-to-watch... https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/k5lwus/imgur...

Hilariously, I found this article from about a year before they added those ads: https://digiday.com/marketing/imgur-diversifying-beyond-ad-r...

This is what flailing around trying to find a business model looks like. If Imgur was profitable without those ads, they wouldn't be abusing their users like this.


Yet they are not profitable. It seems that "nitro" is not enough.


The second they try to monetize discord like a mobile game is the second all of my friends stop using it and hop to the next silicon Valley chat app that pops up


I’d slightly revise your description of the scheme from no business model to a intentional no revenue business model allowing for the valuation speculation to run rampant (i.e. at anytime we could stop investing in our growth, then it’s all profits). Of course by the time they go public like say Uber and set multiple records on quarterly losses and the investors drop the bag on the public it becomes obvious they can’t stop spending or the business will go under so instead they will continue accumulating billion dollar plus losses every quarter so by the time the shit hits the fan original founders and investors are on to the next thing and can always say they took a xx billion dollar startup public and that’s when the company lost its culture and the corporate greed ruined it.


As user's it seems we're addicted to hopping from one unsustainable free product to the next.

We don't want to pay. And we're upset when they vanish or change dramatically try to find a way to remain viable financially.


Cool idea. But I'm not seeing a practical application outside of the "hey this is cool!" factor.


I have often used the comparison to early personal computers. The things were mainly switched and lights, but there was potential for where it could go.

I heard that even early Apple people would say "A computer in every household", and people would ask, "What would I do with a computer?" and their best answer was "It's a great way to store and file your recipes."


I love holograms, always found it extremely fascinating, but this is not really an argument. Anything _could_ sort of become the next personal computer, the question is why you think specifically holograms are useful?


I feel like anywhere you see a flat 2D image could be a 3D hologram eventually. And holograms give the "whole message", so more information, better information, clearer information. That's the potential. So portraits, some day hologram cameras, CAD output, advertising, and yes eventually hologram television/displays.

But we are starting with something more simple, and not trying to promise everything to everyone. That does mean looking for initial use cases that will take off early.


I certainly hope you’re right, I want to see holographic displays replace lcd for one thing, even though I’m a bit skeptical.

3d tv flopped, it could have been a start of something, terrible as it was. Lightfield cameras didn’t take off either, maybe because of the price. Let’s hope this could be a beginning!


That's the idea! Hologram technology has a lot of untapped potential, and is still in early stages of growth.


There's nothing wrong with vanity items, like any picture on the wall.


I definitely want holograms of my kids! (part of why I wanted to build this all along)


I'm no fan of Facebook here as both them and Google have some questionable practices here. But I do find the law questionable. As I have seen it described it focuses solely on two tech companies without remediating the issues that allow anyone to operate in such a way. My understanding is that Murdoch essentially has monopoly control on the Australian media market and uses that to influence the political leanings of the country. The situation feels like that control is being exploited to protect his control and bottom line.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: