I once worked at a company that sold industry-specific core-business software to deep-pocketed corps who couldn’t / wouldn’t / shouldn’t roll their own.

Paul Cantrell

Paul Cantrell

@plsik
sorry/welcome?

Paul Cantrell

@KatS
You’re agressively agreeing with me: the point is that, in that first example in my thread that you're replying to, our terrible product really •was• an improvement. Nobody was being swindled. The companies knew how bad our stuff was, and knew how much worse their current processes were. No hoax there.

—

Students are always astonished when I tell them that of course you release software w/bugs. “Ideally, a good team understands •what• bugs they're releasing.”

Paul Cantrell

@Stevenheywood
Back then and still today, I think

Paul Cantrell

@paulmwatson
I mean, yes, and to hell with the church of Altman. I do think this is a bubble and there will be a crash.

Paul Cantrell

@penguin42
Yup, definitely recognize “nobody’s actually gotten that far” from support — and I’ve been on both sides of that conversation!

Paul Cantrell

@wolf480pl
Someone once remarked that patients are the free labor of the US medical system, and that’s really stuck with me. And it’s not just medical where that pattern occurs.

Paul Cantrell

@cammerman
You’re welcome??

Paul Cantrell

@gme
No, but one of the companies I worked for was purchased by Oracle after I left, so yes, I was in that general universe.

George Ellenburg (he/him/his)

@[email protected] I have nothing but hatred and disdain for Oracle.

Paul Cantrell

@http_error_418 @kaasbaas
Human well-being?! Why would •that• ever matter?!?

Paul Cantrell

@gme
They are certainly…something!

Martin Vermeer FCD

@inthehands I once half in jest claimed that the real reason proprietary software companies don't disclose their source code is not because it is a 'valuable business secret' but because they are ashamed of it. The code quality, I mean. Those rare opportunities I have had to look at source have not changed my mind...

Paul Cantrell

@martinvermeer
Yes, and not just ashamed of the quality; in many causes it would expose the product as being an empty promise, maybe even expose outright negligence or fraud.

Paul Cantrell

Because I’ve apparently driven some people to despair with this thread, some rays of hope:

First, note that point of my very first example is that the product was •not• a hoax. It really did make things better for real people. Sometimes it can be hard for perfectionists like myself to accept that better is •better•. Sometimes we do actually build things that matter, even if they kind of stink relative to some nonexistent Platonic ideal. Take the win, Paul!

Ah, but the rest of the thread…

A/1

Paul Cantrell

As many point out, there are systemic forces at play that create these situations where “fake and dangerous” is acceptable to a business, even if it harms actual humans. It’s not just that there are awful people; it’s that our system creates the awful people it needs.

Leaving aside grandiose utopian theories, a few concrete things that could help:

1. Giving antitrust real teeth
2. Repeat 1 for emphasis
3. Making industry less investor-driven
4. …which means reducing wealth inequality

A/2

Marsh Gardiner 🌱🐝

@inthehands spectacular thread. no notes.

Paul Cantrell

Expanding on 3 & 4 a bit: Right now, there’s a huge mass of concentrated wealth whose owners aren’t going to spend it, so they want to invest it. And they want returns. They want more returns than actually are out there to be found. So industry needs to •invent• those returns.

That means a company that will never and can never ever deliver anything of true value can still make it if in convinces investors it might grow.

“Does it matter if it’s wrong?” Not if it's convincing to investors!

A/3

Paul Cantrell

Much the same thing created the 2008 mortgage crisis. Wealth needs a place to roost → mortgages look safe → more demand for mortgage investments than there are mortgages → people find ways to invent mortgages that shouldn’t exist, to attract investment.

Then: mortgages. Now: AI.

It’s not just a hype bubble; it’s an “oversupply of investment dollars” bubble. Is there a word for that? I am not an economist.

@Npars01 replied with more on this here: https://mstdn.social/@Npars01/113604472161286632

A/4

Paul Cantrell

Weirdly, the old consumer-driven version of capitalism, where profit came from sales, now looks lovely compared to the current investor-driven version where profit comes from wooing the ultra-wealthy.

Sorry, Marxists in the replies, I am not optimistic about the inevitable market swing bringing about revolution and glorious utopia. It didn’t in 2008, and it won’t now either. But I do believe the pendulum will swing back, at least.

And we do have greater than zero power to help it swing.

A/5