[raverbashing]

I wonder why there are so many people with absolutely no comprehension of sarcasm (and other similar constructs) on HN.

Probably the same who then complain about their companies favouring bosses who have more communication/social skills.

Or maybe they're just trolling.

I'm all for founding a company which specializes in "Stupid shit no one needs" and is valued at billions of dollars. Sign me up!

[crpatino]

> I'm all for founding a company which specializes in "Stupid shit no one needs" and is valued at billions of dollars. Sign me up!

At least in theory, companies "valued at billions" literally cannot specialize in "shit no one needs". That statement comes most likely from an observer that does not belong to your target market and has little capacity for empathy (this shit I don't need, therefore no one ought to need it).

Of course it is possible to sell worthless equity to gullible investors, if you happen to have a knack to find any. Though I don't think that's what you were talking about.

[tripzilch]

> companies "valued at billions" literally cannot specialize in "shit no one needs".

Yes they should diversify into "shit no one wants", "shit no one knows about", "shits no one gives" and "shits not taken".

[crpatino]

Of course, once you are already making billions, you can waste as much as those in idiotic dead end projects as you wish. I just assumed the GP was talking about startups.

[raverbashing]

Example (though probably not a billion dollars):

https://gigaom.com/2011/01/17/cheezburger-network-gets-30m-f...

Not sure what's the current valuation after this: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/cheezburger-cutting-35-staff-tr...

Of course, people like entertainment, though it's not something strictly necessary.

[crpatino]

Agreed, it is human nature to want some things that may ultimately be not good (or even actively harmful) for our own well being.

I was just pointing out the fact that there is a difference between "There's no market for X" and "Users of X would be better off doing without, so X should not exist."

The first is a fact, the second is a combination of a judgement of value + a prescription based on that particular judgement. And while there are many useful prescriptions based on judgements, there is a slippery slope that ends up with one small group doing all the judgements and the rest of society enduring the prescriptions. So, it's better to proceed with caution.

(Which itself is a judgement/prescription pair... so take it with a grain of salt, or not)