Yeah, the dude looks exactly the archetypical way. I would imagine he codes Lisp, develops Emacs and has something to do with the FSF immediately after a single look at him :-)
No one is forcing them to retire, I for one would be interested to see what these productive people would come up with when they shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact.
I'd be willing to bet that at least some of them would. Instinctively I would also guess that it would lead to a better outcome on average, but as I'm less certain about that which is why I would like to see it tested out.
True, though I do think great profit is not possible with _maximal_ social impact (unless hoarding cash serves to restrict total consumption and thus limit climate impact).
And the light pollution on its own is a concern - why the everloving fuck should Musk of all people get to block humanity's starlight for his own private profit.
I think this assumes that only Certain Blessed Special People could create Google, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, and so on. I think there are a lot of people out there who could start and/or run one of these. The population of entrepreneurs is limited by the number of potential commercializable ideas, not by the number of people who can do it. If people just stopped at $50M, it would open things up for even more entrepreneurs to make shots like those companies. Currently, a small number of already-rich people are using up all the economic oxygen in the room trying to get richer.
1. Lots of factors come in play here like transaction fees, transaction speed, trading slippage. Usually the best way is to work with OTC desks (like FTX OTC for example) which involves KYC at some point.
2. For accounting and taxes, there are actually companies out there whose business is in helping people sort this out. varies country to country, and due diligence of course.
2. Yes I figured there must be others who face the same challenges. It doesn't seem too difficult from our point of view but not sure from a contractors point of view. Will check those companies out in the meantime.
We don't disagree and we've heard from non-technical managers and designers that Constructor has the potential to be simply "a better Trello for everyone". This is probably because despite being designed for software teams we try to serve all roles equally well, i.e. make sure we create an outstanding UX for the non-developers on those teams. Something we've seen happen at a lot of places is a "tool schism" where part of the team (design or PM) will cleave off and use Trello or Basecamp and leave the devs to Jira because they find it unusable, but the devs need their Jira for various good reasons. Constructor is designed to prevent tool schisms.
Your 80% observation is if anything an underestimate; there's almost nothing in Constructor that makes it dev-specific beyond the GitHub and devops integrations that are mostly absent if you don't activate them, and would be easy for us to make totally optional. This surprised us when we realized it, because we are quite devoted to serving software teams specifically.
Always has been. Through insurance,
cost-pass-thru, taxes, direct medication purchase, etc. So, now that it's established that it's always the individual paying into...which is the most efficient way of allocating funds out of the system? Profit? Lives saved? Less acne?
