|
|
|
|
|
by pintxo
3007 days ago
|
|
Talking about the extremes, I agree. Talking about defining sensible rules to allow a wider range of people to be successful than only those being a member of the local Golf Club, I disagree. There should be no question that we need rules, and at the same time there should be intense discussions - if not intellectual fights - about which rules we need and how to implement and enforce them. |
|
But what does "successful" mean in practice?
E.g. If there are 100 software security companies, 50% of those are below average in performance (and will probably get chosen less).
Do we no longer choose let the consumers choose? All of these software companies should now receive a percentage of business, regardless of performance/trust/expertise?
Or should the top performing companies be disallowed the following year to market or do sales in order to give the underperforming companies a chance to catch up?
What is "sensible" and who decides?