This is just my opinion - without any specific data to back it up - so take it with a grain of salt.
The perceived failure of a number of high profile tech companies recently is definitely a huge issue, but I think it's symptomatic of a much bigger problem: the artificial "systems" we've created for society are toxic and incentivise the wrong kind of thinking/behaviour.
In other words, I don't think tech/software is the real issue here. The real question we should be asking is "what does it say about ourselves when half the population is living paycheck to paycheck, yet VCs have the freedom to gamble billions of dollars to extract even more riches for themselves?" Within this context, the blame for these failed companies lies with the VCs who greedily hyped them, alongside a fundamentally flawed economic system that incentivizes such behaviour in the first place.
For example, let's consider Uber. I'm going to call them a failure in the sense that their financial future is in serious question, when only a couple of years ago they were still the "next Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/etc.". However, when considering the company's technology in isolation, Uber is typically viewed as world-class. Uber's contributions to open-source machine learning are often cited (although I haven't used any personally). In this way, I would still make extensive use of Uber's technological innovations if I were in ML/AI, despite the company being an abject failure in every other aspect.
In summary, I think that a company's technological prowess (or lack thereof) is a consideration separate from whether the company as a whole is a success or failure. It's possible to admire a company's tech while still viewing the company in its entirety a failure.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
This is just my opinion - without any specific data to back it up - so take it with a grain of salt.
The perceived failure of a number of high profile tech companies recently is definitely a huge issue, but I think it's symptomatic of a much bigger problem: the artificial "systems" we've created for society are toxic and incentivise the wrong kind of thinking/behaviour.
In other words, I don't think tech/software is the real issue here. The real question we should be asking is "what does it say about ourselves when half the population is living paycheck to paycheck, yet VCs have the freedom to gamble billions of dollars to extract even more riches for themselves?" Within this context, the blame for these failed companies lies with the VCs who greedily hyped them, alongside a fundamentally flawed economic system that incentivizes such behaviour in the first place.
For example, let's consider Uber. I'm going to call them a failure in the sense that their financial future is in serious question, when only a couple of years ago they were still the "next Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/etc.". However, when considering the company's technology in isolation, Uber is typically viewed as world-class. Uber's contributions to open-source machine learning are often cited (although I haven't used any personally). In this way, I would still make extensive use of Uber's technological innovations if I were in ML/AI, despite the company being an abject failure in every other aspect.
In summary, I think that a company's technological prowess (or lack thereof) is a consideration separate from whether the company as a whole is a success or failure. It's possible to admire a company's tech while still viewing the company in its entirety a failure.