[sylware]

Those toxic companies have billions of cash, then backed by the tens of thousands of billions from funds like vanguard and blackrock.

This money is sort of "weaponized".

If you are not "them", if you stick to the basic "economic rules", you are already gone as you cannot exist.

[etothepii]

The real difference with tech is that this isn't true.

If you make something people want you can sell it. When I started our company 4 years ago I'd have considered $1m ARR a massive achievement. Now I'm here in my heart I feel a need to grow and raise or we'll die - but In my head I don't think this is actually true.

I don't think there has been a time in human history before where a company of our size (30x median wages) could have been built without needing a great deal of capital.

If Microsoft/Google et al want to use Blackrock/Vanguard's money to buy up small companies that creates more incentive for the young and idealistic to start such companies. While economic security is of sufficient value that resisting a first buyout would be hard for most (hence Sergey and Larry trying to sell for $1m) once a first buyout has been achieved a second buyout can never be forced.

[sylware]

This is delusional: If you bother them and you are to follow the basic 'economic rules', you have zero chance.

If you want to exist in that case:

1 - you must have the will to resist them (for how long, since they will always be around in some shape due to unlimited funding).

2 - you must have some kind of mechanism to be 'outside of the basic economic rules' (usually subsidies or similar).

[etothepii]

Which part is delusional?

Yes most people would struggle to resist a $5m buyout (e.g. Larry and Sergey) but if you had $5m in the bank you would be quite robust in your ability to resist further economic pressure - if you wanted to.

Most 20 year olds can get by on <$20k a year if they are willing to flat share, move home, eat noodles etc, given SWE make $150k+ most can generate this short of revenue on their own in short order.

The vast, vast amount of software is unbelievably bad. It does the task it's designed for just barely, the idea there isn't massive opportunity for improvement, fun and profit is patently absurd.

Not sure what part of this is delusional.

[sylware]

Huh? This is much more complicated than a ridiculous $5m buyout. They will spend you out of business, financially chock you if you follow the 'basic economic rules', they even won't know you exist.

Yes, this is delusional. You would need infinite subsidies, an iron will, hardcore regulation, all that for forever to have a little chance at being significant.

(side note: on HN, many are aware than most software, open source or not, are brain diarrhea).

[nova22033]

How did vanguard and blackrock get the money they invest in Microsoft?

Hint: It's from average people investing in their retirement...

[sylware]

This is not what I said:

1 - they have their own cash from huge racketering (forced) monetary streams. 2 - then, you still have the tens of thousands of billions from funds like vanguard and blackrock.

Those gigantic amounts of money are 'economically weaponized' to 'economically destroy' any sane alternatives, at worldwide scale. RIP "ecomonic competition" (who thinks nowadays this thing is not a scam).

So you say the very average people investing there are plainly aware their money is engaged in 'economic tyrany' which forces down the throat of nearly all average people, that worldwide, the _amazing_ msft software ? mmmmh....