The great asymmetry between the left and right is that they are, to a large degree, living their economic worldviews: the left gets easy money from on high to do their stuff — grants from philanthropists, venture capital, etc. — and the right has to create wealth from the bottom up by bootstrapping. For the right, one must bear his own risk, thus getting started is a big jump less frequently taken; for the left, there are institutions that will bear your risk for you, so they have an overabundance of founders of startups with a 90% failure rate.
An aside: the insulation from risk for the founder insulates his leftist political beliefs from the reality of the market. Not having to bear his own risk, he will never understand what it is to be a true entrepreneur; he can continue believing that business owners don’t deserve to be paid more than an employee, etc., without challenge.
There are a lot of people working 9-5s who can start viable enterprises that benefit their cause, but they’ve got families to feed and need to know they can feed their families doing these things. Even crowdfunding is off the table, with Gofundme shutting down right-wing fundraisers. The best way to show these people that they can make it is to support right-wing entrepreneurs: their market success sends a signal to those who haven’t taken the jump yet.
Ownership is a key aspect of large-scale software development. We examine the relationship between different ownership measures and software failures in two large software projects: Windows Vista and Windows 7. We find that in all cases, measures of ownership such as the number of low-expertise developers, and the proportion of ownership for the top owner have a relationship with both pre-release faults and post-release failures. We also empirically identify reasons that low-expertise developers make changes to components and show that the removal of low-expertise contributions dramatically decreases the performance of contribution based defect prediction. Finally we provide recommendations for source code change policies and utilization of resources such as code inspections based on our results.
Sound familiar? This seems to vindicate Sovereign Software Development at the level of effect: Sovereign Software Development concerns itself with bringing about the organizational and environmental conditions that will facilitate experts being able to produce without outside interference; this paper attests that the result is higher-quality software.
Software companies, at present, generally operate under a deeply flawed collaboration model: a socialist one. The engineering team owns the codebase in common, with no one having more authority than anyone else in any part of it. When you make changes, anyone on the team, no mater how far removed from the changes you’re making, can criticize and obstruct your changes; even if you’re altering something you created to begin with and know best.
This socialist model is ideal for entryists to sabotage and subvert. Furthermore, it fails to reward those of outstanding merit, who can only get informal recognition at best. There has to be a better option.
While Black Pilled emphasizes the indignities of workplaces in the 90s and today, here, we emphasize his conclusion: that the solution is entrepreneurship.
America was intended to be, from its inception, a nation of entrepreneurs. Young men were expected to work for older, better-established, more experienced men in order to learn a craft before eventually going into business for themselves.
What happened? How did this great vision get derailed, transforming this country into one of a handful of corporations in most sectors and legions of perpetual workers? That’ll be the subject of the next post. Stay tuned.
Humor me for a moment, and suppose an industry is like a country. Every country is different; there are different terrains, different food sources, different dangers. The native people who have lived there for many generations know its quirks well and are able to survive by being well-adapted to them.
But life can’t be that simple, can it? Someone’s gotta come along and ruin the party. We’ll call them invaders and subjugators as we flesh this out.
This is our knowledge base for target companies, their weaknesses, and how to profitably take advantage of those weaknesses. Join the cause to take back tech from its occupiers — it’s literally in your financial interest.
While we’ve all got our plans that we won’t be sharing, contribute your other insights to the knowledge base so others can hit the ground running. Having more bootstrapped, closely-held companies in the space benefits us all indirectly. Your contribution to the wiki is a vote for this eventuality.
We’re near launching the wiki, where we can collaborate to overwhelm Silicon Valley giants with small, targeted competition. Even with massive workforces and mountains of cash, they can’t defend every position.
One of the realizations I had, growing up in a leftist state and breaking the brainwashing in college — quite the opposite of how it typically goes — is that the tenet of leftism that is most appealing to the more sympathetic can be expressed as such: weakness is the new strength.
Back when I subscribed to leftism, it was for simple reasons. Leftists looked out for the destitute; otherwise they would starve, right? Leftists stuck up for people who were discriminated against; I believed that was happening at the time. Leftism is the weak standing together to not be trampled by the strong. Right?
Well, leftism has had its way. It is now the establishment. What have the results been?
This Amazon review of Venture Deals, a guide to securing venture capital, written by venture capitalists (hmm…), is truly a review of venture capital in general. Read the review for an expose of how rigged the game is against the founder.