News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by pembrook on Friday April 14, 2023 @03:25AM (#35566525)
> We don't need more tech companies. We don't need more hedge funds.

What we absolutely don’t need, is autocrats dictating what society needs.

Luckily we already have this cool innovation called a market economy. It’s not perfectly efficient (especially in the short term), but pretty damn efficient.

By throwing off price signals, the market allows us to allocate efforts to things society wants more of. Unfortunately, contrary to the wishes of the King, it turns out society wants more tech companies.

But sometimes we do indeed over-allocate resources to tech companies! Luckily we have the hedge funds incentivized to make profit by arbitraging those prices back to reality (As we’ve just witnessed in tech). I guess we also need more hedge funds!

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by bheadmaster on Friday April 14, 2023 @03:50AM (#35566685)
> Luckily we already have this cool innovation called a market economy

Market economy got us into the situation where the most brilliant minds in the world are researching best ways to make internet advertisements as addictive as they can be.

Very cool innovation, indeed. Ever read The Space Merchants?

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by a4a4a4a4 on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:11AM (#35566833)
> the most brilliant minds in the world are researching best ways to make internet advertisements as addictive as they can be.

They're doing a great job, ads are so addictive I've even turned off my Ad blocker so I can get more of them! Won't someone save me!

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by bheadmaster on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:29AM (#35566954)
I assume you're saying that ads are irrelevant because we have AdBlock?

Ads would always exist, but think about how many great (even lifesaving) solutions we're missing out on because market decided they aren't worthy of pursuit.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by a4a4a4a4 on Friday April 14, 2023 @08:01AM (#35568518)
I'm saying ads aren't "addictive", because they're pretty despised. They might be effective, when people see them, but I don't think anyone is "addicted" to ads.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by adrianN on Friday April 14, 2023 @08:52AM (#35568992)
Every influencer is basically an ad on two legs.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by a4a4a4a4 on Friday April 14, 2023 @10:17AM (#35569833)
Are we talking about influencers, or “the world’s brightest minds”?
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by bheadmaster on Friday April 14, 2023 @10:40AM (#35570056)
They're working together. Youtube algorithms compute the most likely influencer that is going to occupy your attention and serve you advertisements in the process.

"Nobody is addicted to ads" is true if you think only about the pop-ups and couple-second videos as "ads" - but the concept of advertisements is much wider than that. Some adverisements may not even be presented as such - they may be presented as "useful content", but which is chosen above other such useful content by the virtue of being paid for to the advertising company.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by bheadmaster on Friday April 14, 2023 @10:44AM (#35570099)
You're nitpicking an irrelevant detail. Expand "ads" in my comment to "screen time" generally and the "despised" counterargument falls apart. The whole point of my comment is that brilliant minds are working on making stuff more addictive to people, instead of making the world a better place.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by smcin on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @10:43PM (#35635741)
It's the content (and personalized curation, based on what the platform's learned you want to see) that's addictive, not the ads. Users are addicted to the content creators, and watching ads is the price they have to pay to sit through to watch free content. Picking ads that are relevant, or at least not annoying enough to make you switch off, is part of the platform's experience. And there are creators who blend ads in as organic content, or at least a personalized endorsement which doesn't come across as phony, which MrBeast said gets the most positive response.

I recently turned off tracking, and suddenly started getting served ads for 'green cremation'. I guess statistically few people are interested in that, but conversions are lucrative, although the 99% of users who don't want to see it probably get mildly annoyed.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by jwestbury on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:47AM (#35567083)
How about an even better -- and more salient -- example? Quant trading firms are gobbling up promising researchers in fields like physics and mathematics. These are people getting funded Ph.Ds at top universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc.), and they end up just going to companies which exist solely for the purpose of making rich people richer.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by pembrook on Friday April 14, 2023 @05:05AM (#35567191)
Quant firms provide value to society, hence why they are compensated for it.

Liquidity and price discovery are useful things. Nobody would pay them otherwise.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by jabradoodle on Friday April 14, 2023 @05:28AM (#35567302)
If the definition of providing value to society = making a profit, then is selling heroin providing value to society?
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by bheadmaster on Friday April 14, 2023 @06:50AM (#35567928)
> Liquidity and price discovery are useful things. Nobody would pay them otherwise.

Is there any other evidence of their usefulness beyond "people pay for it"?

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by sokoloff on Friday April 14, 2023 @09:01AM (#35569105)
On the liquidity side, would you pay more for a security that you could easily and quickly sell with small slippage than you would for a security that could not be easily sold or only sold with a large slippage?

"People pay for [that]" because it's a genuinely useful property of an investment vehicle.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by onion2k on Friday April 14, 2023 @03:54AM (#35566705)
Luckily we already have this cool innovation called a market economy.

We don't really though. There are companies, and individuals, with enough wealth and influence to compete with entire markets. A well-funded startup can undermine whole industries by spending VC money to run at a loss long enough that the rest of the market fails (Uber, AirBNB) or they can become so massive that there's absolutely no possibility of competing (Amazon). People can start private companies that do things only governments have done before (SpaceX, Palantir). These businesses are not influenced by pricing, because they're either too well funded to care, or too influential for others to get a foot in the door.

Free market economics is a beautiful idea, but every big business (and some small businesses) do all they can to subvert the market and hold a monopoly on something. Heck, Peter Thiel literally wrote a book about how to do exactly that - Zero To One.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by qeternity on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:33AM (#35566983)
> so massive that there's absolutely no possibility of competing

Scale has no value unless it offers something to your customer base. What you're ignoring is that Uber, Amazon et al are so huge and dominant because customers flock to them. I can summon a taxi to my location in most cities in the world with a single app. I can have pretty much any item delivered to my door within one or two days. These were unfathomable 10-15 years ago.

Amazon has huge amounts of competition, as does Uber. I have absolutely no idea where you get this idea they are not influenced by pricing. Uber hasn't made any money in its entire existence. That is not characteristic of a monopoly.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by carschno on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:59AM (#35567163)
I think your argument is missing GP's point entirely. The point was that a functioning market economy would evolve so that companies that sell products or services at a self-sustaining price survive, whereas companies that lose money continuously die. However, this is clearly not the case, given that companies like Uber, as you mention, do survive without being profitable at all. Competitors that are not backed by near-infinite money cannot survive this competition, regardless of their product or efficiency.

Whether or not a functioning market economy could ever exist in reality if of course another question.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by sokoloff on Friday April 14, 2023 @09:00AM (#35569080)
I don't know that Uber turning a mere 14 years old is proof that the market economy isn't functioning. In a time of incredibly low interest rates and the resulting free-flowing money sloshing around looking for any possible return, I'd expect a lot of companies to reach their teens without that being proof that they can continue indefinitely without showing profits and returns to investors.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by carschno on Friday April 14, 2023 @11:04AM (#35570347)
You are certainly right that Uber alone is not a proof; the underlying causes are complex and include the factors you mention.

Anyway, the promise of a market economy is that it selects the "best" by competition. The fact that companies like Uber survive for decades while making losses and destroying potential competitors shows that this promise of the market economy does not stand in reality.

Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by navane on Friday April 14, 2023 @03:56AM (#35566725)
The market as implemented in the past, in a world with technology form the past, worked well in the past. This doesn't mean it won't need to be changed ever. No one is saying the complete market should be removed. We always have had rules putting boundaries on free markets (child labour, slavery), and these rules should move with the times.
Re:What's the Least Impactful Way to Spend $300,000,000? by lordnacho on Friday April 14, 2023 @04:21AM (#35566904)
The problem with this is who gets to decide what efficient means.

It's not exactly news that the market throws off price signals, the question is whether those signals are the correct signals.

After all, the market also decided it wanted opioids, slaves, and a betting shop on every high street in the UK. Are we wrong to question whether Mr Market is right?