Having seen and done this transition I can tell you that companies do very little for innovation compared to university researchers. Companies are exclusively focused on profit, they don’t do the five to ten year moonshot project unless they are already a massive corporation, not a startup, and even then the massive companies want the easiest thing to translate to a product and begin making money. At best they have engineers that make scaling up more practical, and while that is a fun and interesting thing, it is also very straightforward and is something a company has to avoid screwing up, not investing in massively to make it right.

I’ve seen several companies that did literally nothing except swap a couple things on their production line and call it a day. The only transition from research to industry was an IP agreement and a few meetings.

Large companies are not looking for innovation by buying startups, they are usually looking to secure monopolies. Sometimes they want the product and to work it into their own product offerings. This is often a way to vertically integrate more, not innovate. They bring in-house because they see a competitor emerging and want to hedge their bets or because they see a way to take over a market by just doing the same thing. Sometimes it is just a way to hire some employees that seem pretty competent and thereby deprive your competitors. Large companies operate with a monopoly mindset. This is also why Google kills every project that they declare won’t scale into a huge money-maker (they really mean take over a market).

Small companies are often started with the plan of actually making and selling their product long-term but run headfirst into the fact that their industry is dominated by just 3 companies that will gladly do the one-two punch of threatening to bleed you legally with nonsense lawsuits while offering to buy you up. Or, on the flipside, just copying your work and changing it just enough that they know they could bleed you legally even though they have broken IP law. Usually, they would rather just buy you out at less than you are worth but enough to make the VCs happy.

The source of their data says they were using it incorrectly, that it simply does not mean what they reported. I have not gone into exactly what their data is, just that it was reported as total new funded startups and the data provider says, “that’s not what this is”.

It also looks like these numbers might not even be accurate: https://nitter.privacydev.net/NuryVittachi/status/1834747250666508679

I would expect a decrease in VC startups based on the way China is tackling finsnce, though.

I think innovation will happen more through universities and existing large companies. Most research and innovation happens through universities anyways and China is currently having an academia boom.

Companies like Huawei are way up, and domestic consumption is slowly rising.

The metrics here are those most relevant to finance, which is not synonymous with innovation. Startups are notorious money sinks that are only invested in due to a promise of monopoly profits later, basically a gamble. They usually fail, and dramatically. Finance is necessary for private capital investment and liquidity but when it grows too large it becomes parasitic and also tries to dictate policy. The real estate bubble that China is now dealing with is a direct result of financialization and an expectation that it would be “too big to fail” and that real estare finance would get bailed out by government.

China is tackling this issue by limiting the impact of finance on its economy, changing its lending terms and what it guarantees, including not bailing out real estate finance. This has the direct effect of making startups and venture capital less common as they simply can’t make as much money from pure speculation. They don’t have a state-funded safety net for their worst gambles and interest rates are higher.

Overall, this is a good development. China’s finance sector absolutely needed to be limited and it is good for the state to take on a greater role in running companies.

It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts’ union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.

I’m holding out for titanium do I can add it to my EDC loadout and totally dunk on that loser Travis at the office.

What democracy? Isn’t your argument that you have no choice but to genocide? Isn’t your argument that you can never use your vote as leverage to demand what you want?

The strategy portion of what I listed is how you could attempt to be democratic rather than genocide candidate cheerleaders.

Do you actually not understand the meme?

Yeah internet culture can get pretty gross.

How dare I notice an inconsistency!

Hmm how often do you inappropriately tell people to not be victims? That’s definitely a far-right turn of phrase.

You’re only saying that because you got owned recently.

(this is a joke)

“Hold your nose and vote genocide”.

Rather than rewarding genociders, might I suggest opposing them? I was told this was the worst crime, but apparently it isn’t as bad as not voting for it.

If you’d like to do electoral math, being an automatic lever pull means you have no leverage. And if your conception of electoralism is to cheerlead and support top-down dictates, you’re actively disempowering yourself.

But personally, I don’t think it should require game theory to not vote for any pro-genocide candidate. Demand better or be complicit. I certainly won’t forget this depravity.

Don’t complain about me doing bad things or my buddy over here will do even worse.

Thought-terminating cliche

“Don’t like far-right policies? You’ve already lost the argument, for I have depicted you as the soyjack”

I am always available if you would like to engage in good faith

The starvation is due to their country being invaded and bombed for 20 years, their foreign reserves being stolen, and massive sanctions. We are seeing collective punishment visited in the normal civilians of Afghanistan.

The Taliban itself only came to power due to destabilization of the former (incompetent) government by the US. They were described as God-fearing freedom fighters that should be (and were) materially supported. It was only the militant Islamophobia of the post-9/11 US that led to any pretense of caring about the people of Afghanistan - and to use this as an excuse for invading and bombing them. For the record, civilians don’t benefit from getting bombed.

Now we see this filter down into this discourse, where so long as a person can maintain sufficient hate for the Taliban, it isn’t so bad to starve 10-15 million people in Afghanistan. Taliban bad, so widespread deprivation is okay.

The logic in this thread is, and I am not exaggerating, that used by Nazis on their occupied populations and it is why it is a war crime.

I’m not talking about collective punishment

When I point out that it’s bad for Afghanistan to “go broke” because it means the starvation of the population, you respond by vilifying the Taliban. Obviously, this is not a direct response to what I actually said, so we have to put on our thinking caps. This attempt to justify the starvation of a population either by deflection or a more concrete but implicit logic is the logic of collective punishment.

you brought that up bc you support groups that collectively punish women for existing

I have nerve said anything like this.

I just hate the taliban, and I’m not such a cartoonish misogynist or dumbass tankie that I think they’re cool and OK just bc they oppose the US.

It sounds like you are having a rich disagreement with the person in your head. And you are even winning! But it has no relation to me.

I really hope you come to that conclusion too, but if you don’t we should meet up so I can knock all your teeth out :3

We have now reached the “threats of violence” portion if the Lemmy.world experience. And all because I don’t think the country of Afghanistan deserves to starve just because the Taliban is its government.