[Terr_]

I can't give a definitive answer since I'm not the parent poster, however, it makes sense to me: There are various areas in which "disruptors" have promised that their outsider approach would somehow revolutionize the status quo into something better, and either they flopped or it became arguably worse in the long run.

A simple example might be how Theranos was going to innovate past stodgy medical companies and provide wonderful new diagnostics to drive down healthcare costs, etc.

Or how certain rideshare companies, once they achieved various local -opoly statuses--in ways not entirely aboveboard--are somehow back to a worse value-proposition than the system they displaced.

[roenxi]

All that tells us is that some attempts at improvement fail. Which, while common, doesn't inform us about the whether making attempts is good.

Startups give you as many attempts at improving a situation as there are people who can scrape together some capital. Improvements from within is capped at (#Existing Companies x %with functional management) which is a much smaller number of attempts. Improvements by regulation is capped at ... N=1 and whatever the odds are that a good idea dodges regulatory capture, your political opponents, inertia and being too hard to enforce (sub 1 attempt in practice, maybe 2 or 3 pushes in exceptional circumstances).

Of the options, startups are the best. The failures are less consequential.

[Terr_]

I don't think they meant to say that all experimentation is bad, but rather to satirize a certain blend of overoptimistic tech-bro ideology that often pops up.