100%. The market is fundamentally different than it was the last time "green tech" tried to become a thing. Solar is nearly at price parity with fossil fuels. The space is currently exploding and will transform the world in the next 10-20 years. In many ways it already is (see: Tesla).
> The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.
It would be an example if the parent advocated for breakage. But the historical breakage is vast already. It's still ongoing. Parent is just pointing out that it's going to be a good time for glaziers.
A lot of the assets that will be replaced (vehicles, power plants, etc.) would have been replaced anyway, because they are or soon will be worn out. That's just business as usual.
The difference is that instead of being replaced with carbon-emitting tech, they will be replaced with modern low emission technology. That's just Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction at work.
Sure, but the broken window fallacy basically just serves to illustrate that there are opportunity costs when we spend resources on fixing something. The benefits we get from these investments are still real, they're just less than what we might have gotten otherwise.
To put it another way - climate change is sure to be a disaster, but if we get better recycling technology, more efficient cars, pollution-free power generation and other improvements as part of the work of fighting it, that's at least a silver lining.
Not necessarily. Bitcoin is the easiest example but it works to varying extents the same way with any supply and demand product (like currencies as well): if someone discovers an issue with bitcoin, nobody wants to own it anymore. The first person to sell is probably happy, but as soon as buyers catch on, the value has disappeared without anyone receiving another penny. If a publicly traded company is suddenly not expected to make more money, its shares become worthless. Nobody received money proportional to the value loss.
I think you're mostly right in this case since we'll need solutions and we'll pay dearly, but value/wealth/money being lost isn't necessarily coupled to someone else getting rich. If people suddenly can't inhabit certain plots of land anymore, they're not selling it at previous market rates anymore; their value is just lost.
I helped building producthunt.com and overclockers.at (and other less successful ones)
Here a few learnings:
1. the community already exists, you just create a communication platform for it
2. make it clear what the community is about [positioning/marketing]
3. make sure the communication/content is interesting [quality]
4. make sure there is enough engagement [perceived critical mass] (encourage people to post, post yourself a lot, fake accounts if needed, only create subforums once the main ones are noisy)
5. have a rhythm - some communities need daily good posts, some live of the weekly newsletter
Does it really though? The individuals with a common interest exist already of course, but if they don't meet in some common physical or virtual space, how is there a community?
Depends on how you look at the word "community". One definition of the word, "a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals," can dictate that a community can exist among those who have not yet met, but are of the same community through a shared interests / goals.
I think this is interesting. Since the original comment was from a producthunt perspective, I was thinking that in that case there was a community. Maybe a strategy is that there is a community that communicates already but this communication is spread across various mediums and not efficient?
I religiously follow producthunt now because of the Devo extension ( https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/devo/elkhalpmbmbae... ), but have noticed that the forum portion tends to be mostly pats on the back. With other endeavors have you been able to create a space where people are more critical?
In your time, how much has producthunt's platform evolved and iterated? I mean, has it been worthwhile and/or necessary to add new features – anything from new functionality to design tweaks to social/API integrations – to keep the platform healthy and audience engaged?
How do you "make sure the communication/content is interesting"? Are you talking about moderation or talking about making sure there is good content posted?
I've read the Reddit origin story of founders submitting content under several usernames to give the appearance of a forming community, while also dictating the initial content and therefore the audience and culture.
Agree on all of these points. One thing is you need to preserve the engagement. If you are the founder of the community platform make sure you keep content being contributed and be personally accessible.
What's a good strategy for hunting on AngelList? During a recent job search for remote roles, AngelList was one places I searched.
I found a less serious crowd compared to indeed or linked-in about hiring now. Previously when working full time I connected with a founder over a two year period and ended up working on a year long project.
What's the best way of connecting through AngelList? Are most people connecting over a period of time or do you find most are using it like a job board where they try to fill a position asap?
you read in your inbox
you act (potentially reply, potentially mark with star/label, always archive)
if it's a todo you dont get to now you put it in the todo label
if you replied and want to make sure you dont lose track -> awaiting reply
if you handed it off to someone and want to keep track -> delegated
if it's about some future meeting (or flight, hotel, etc) -> purple star (forgot what i called it)
you always archive
this way your main inbox is empty and you know what you looked at
by adding (or removing) label they end up (or get out) in the little boxes
at some point you might go through your todos - handle them remove the star/label
at some other point you might browse through the awaiting replies and realise they are done or no longer needed -> remove label
usually write stuff down that i keep repeating in discussions
- eg management advice: https://klinger.io/posts/managing-people-%F0%9F%A4%AF
- eg my angel-investment decision making process: https://klinger.io/posts/how-i-make-investment-decisions
- eg simple productivity-hack: https://klinger.io/posts/q-codes