[sofon]

I agree, we can't proceed without mistakes. But it's incorrect to say that there is no cost, and that we shouldn't minimise mistakes (which is what the comment I was replying to was implying).

The VC stuff... I'm not sure that it's not sustainable. The way VCs are selected is not totally efficient (I would say, not even very efficient). More than that, successful exits for VCs don't always mean that a product or service provided value to the world at large (or was a good use for limited engineering talent), there are lots of ways for a VC to get a successful exit without that happening (including a follow on investing giving them liquidity, before there is even a product on the market for example, or the company being acquired without having developed anything useful).

[maxerickson]

I said more than "not sustainable", I said that if it is really a problem, it wouldn't be sustainable.

If they are wasting tons of money then they probably aren't the thing limiting advancement.

[sofon]

I don't see how that follows. They don't just waste money, they redirect resources that could be deployed better elsewhere.

[maxerickson]

If the money is there to waste, you have some evidence that no one has a better idea about how to deploy the resources.

There's the problem of what "better" should mean, but private investors aren't going to fund government for fun (or similar), so many of the alternative meanings of better can't really be expected to inform a discussion about private investment. Like maybe stupid VC spending is evidence that tech companies aren't getting taxed enough, but that is solved by raising taxes, not by hand-wringing over questionable products.

[sofon]

Why? VCs might just be not very good at selecting good plays?