[sdevonoes]

Isn't the statement a bit obvious? Most of the tech companies out there were not born to make an impact on society, they were born to make money (which is totally fine). Only a handful of companies can be proud of making money while actually having an impact (good or bad) on society (e.g., Apple). Most of us (us != HN crowd) work for companies in the first group.

On the other hand, the vast majority of side projects have a very different: to have fun and/or being useful. Things that are useful usually make an impact on the society.

[js8]

> Isn't the statement a bit obvious?

No, it isn't obvious, just like the Earth is not obviously round. Even 40 years ago, the statement wasn't obvious to many public intellectuals in the West, when they were in favor of neoliberal economic policies, under the broad assumption that free markets will automatically bring meritocracy (whatever it is). I think this example is one of many that show that meritocracy doesn't really happen by itself, but requires societal consciousness to be implemented.

[noodles_nomore]

Seems like money is only useful to pay for things that are predictable and require hard work, but we're quickly moving into a world where things that are predictable don't require hard work and thing that require hard work aren't predictable.

[e3bc54b2]

Earth has been _obviously_ round for at least 2300 years. Ancient Greeks knew that because a ship on the horizon disappears below the ground instead on gradually getting smaller.

[wintermutestwin]

All enterprises have multiple impacts on society. Many people want their work to tied to an overall net positive organization. That's why so many companies put energy into saying they are beneficial to society. Too bad those statements don't have to be vetted by an independent and impartial rating agency of some sort.