[Stefano Garavaglia]

#3068

Good evening everyone,

Really interesting topic, interesting and stimulating. I personally found it very able in making us contradict ourselves (sure I did myself :), because after every decision, based on a specific rule (in our mind) such as “kill the elder“, “kill the red-crossing (wo)men” or “go straight on, don’t take action“, the following dilemma solution seemed non that good  if taken on the same rule. The first decision maybe is to take action and intervent to avoid the death of three people, but killing the only passenger. And if the following solution would be to AVOID intervention “to save” three lives letting the passenger die? I mean, I am going on with the rule of saving more lives as possible, but I’m not following the avoiding intervention rule.

As this came to my mind, I asked myself: which rule is the most “right/moral” and should therefore be the powerful one? And the second one? In other words, which order of rules suits best to this kind of decision? Census, gender, age, social behaviour: how much does any of these weights?

I think the solution is that this “game” is everything but moral, because you can’t choose whom is worthy of death: this is mere immorality. There is not a fair set of rules to be installed on a self-driving car, and of course is not possible to employ an average. Furthermore, I found of primary importance the difference between a death and a murder. Is it fair to KILL a (wo)man to avoid the DEATH of a pair of them? In the first case, the car is killing a human; in the second one is letting them die, that is at odds with murder.

Instead of doubts such as the capability of a car to recognize if you are rich or poor, good or evil (how do they do?), or the hypothetical choice of a real hand-on-wheel driver, I find more stimulating discussing about the following statement.

The lesser of two evils is always the best solution. I (hypothetical selfish person) am travelling in a self driving car: do I wanna die to save two lives? Of course one is less than a pair, but I don’s see a real reason why I should buy and travel in a car that, beyond taking off the driving pleasure, is ready to let me die, even if “fair and moral”.

Have a nice evening,

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2972

Good morning everyone,

I’m glad to read that almost all of us has a common view about “doing business” in Italy or at least in Europe, it’s really encouraging and indeed a positive mind set for all of us. This is even more powerful and more important nowadays, given the presence of key hubs overseas and the harder capital market conditions in financing young new ideas, due to the high initial risk associated to the investment decision.

I agree with Benedetta concerning the “dual company” way to raise capital, it’s a clever and efficient way to solve/avoid the issue, and I find the financing solution proposed by Giorgio really well-oriented, it underlines our nation effort in this way (even if still underdeveloped for such aspects), willing to ease the many difficulties in getting the resources to bring a new idea, a new business to life.

Our European capital market (and not only) suffers issues such as adverse selection, that means that the financer is not able to choose which “seed” is best to fund, and moral hazard problems, given the fact that the financer can not monitor the hypothetical manager behaviour, which could be unfair. The increasing risk and the absence of real grants lead to increase the cost of capital, well captured phenomenon by the really high yield of the venture capital, long lasting funding way belonging to the private equity category which is the only chance for a non-listed entity (apart from debt) to raise capital. If the above named “seed” (early stage of a hypothetical future start-up) is associated to a high risk level, when and if it is funded, generating a start-up, the need of financial resources is going to increase; going to decrease only once the substained growth is gained and a stable and consistent income level is reached. Then, the financial need is no more negative and the associated risk is really low, and shareholders can proceed to a cash-out phase carrying out an IPO or simply selling the firm.

To give some numbers, data, every thousand business plans undergone by young entrepreneurs, hundred are valued worthy to get a meeting, half of them bring to the run of a due diligence, and in the end only ten business plans are funded. That means that the possibility to get the investment, the chance to succeed, is only one percent. That’s to argue that a succesful start-up need not only a good idea, but also a strong base around which to be developed, a good revenue forecast and the real credibility around these.

In economies such as US, market-oriented, there is a real integration between public and private equity, easying the cash-out perspective and also the funding decision; while in bank-oriented structures such as the European one in which the venture capital is low developed, especially in Italy, this “working method” is more difficult to be carried.

An often underestimate funding way, on my view, could be crowdfunding (34bn dollars raised overall), which means that everyone who believes in the idea, or simply wants to invest a small amount of money in a project can do it, funding start-ups (among the others) on online platforms, obviously not for free (it could be so). What you can get back depends on the scheme choosen by the firm, from a non-money reward to interests on your “loan”, from equity partecipation to royalties. The strength points of crowdfunding are many: capillarity, low money-entity, everyone can do it.

What do you guys think about it?

Have a good start of week,

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2945

Good morning everyone,

according to this last topic my opinions are closer to Edoardo’s ones regarding many aspects.

Of course Chinese most developed cities are a great fertile ground for start-ups to grow, due to key factors such as great expansion rate, huge investments and above all will to invest. They are growing everyday more, they have already began to watch and to seek overseas, searching for ideas, searching for start-ups, catching know-how to bring home, given the presence in Silicon Valley of Chinese Accellerators and Incubators which aims at this, because they know that intellectual property is the key to an economy’s growth, to a nation’s development. Obviously this is known to US which has already blocked many acquisitions, especially in the tech sector. The other side of the coin, that goes on with high growth rate, is high competition: I remember, from my experience, the challenge that every student since their youth is facing to go on studying, because they are a lot and not everyone will make it. And if you don’t, well, there aren’t many opportunities for you, for your work and for your life; as said they are many and not everyone can rise. Competition can push up innovation rates, but if it’s too much heighten it can cause negative effects on environment appetite in my opinion.

According to this view of high competition, great opportunities and growth, together with an easier sailing in the “laws sea” (at least for US), I imagine this “Chinese Silicon Valley” as well as the American one as an open water ocean (apologize for the recurring water-related metaphors), while I figure the European ecosystem as a calm lake, due to law protection and culture. This is to try to explain why I don’t think Silicon Valley should be seen as an Eldorado, given the fact that not all that shines is gold. Of course you can grow faster, you have more opportunities and great concentration of knowledge (as well as Britain’s Industrial Districts of ‘800s, second industrial revolution), but you have to face with sharks, which are the many competitors and the eventuality of failure. Last but not least, the cradle of knowledge and innovation has moved from Italy (very early stage) to Continental Europe, then to Britain and now to Silicon Valley, US, so the crucial importance of it should never be underestimated. I was simply arguing about my hypothetical choice, if I were a start-upper, not to move overseas, but staying in Europe, hopefully in Italy according to an optimistic scenery. This choice follows the presence also in European cities of models such as the already mentioned industrial districts, even if not as marked as in Silicon Valley. A more calm environment may in part brake growth, but on the other hand ensures lasting protection and safety to start-ups, also given the fact that strong growth rates such as the Chinese one are never endless.

Have a nice day,

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2914

Good morning everyone,

I found Precious Plastic Project amazing but also quite strange. The purpose to “work toward a solution to plastic pollution” is really (really) high aiming, and that’s great because only a dream is stronger than reality, and only aiming high makes a concrete change possible. The mission of the community is very powerful, and on my view the most effective strength point is the completely free availability of techniques and knowledges first, since an open source approach is today the key to a project’s success, but above all the real strength of this is that plastic wastes are nowadays everywhere for free. You can collect your raw materials for free whenever and wherever you like the most and give to that plastic materials a new value, a new life. Concluding, the transformation process can allow you to earn money thanks to the online platform “bazar” that helps “recyclers” to place their products on the market, since to recycle is sure a great thing, but not so many would do so if a cash out prospective is missing.

The possibility to turn this non-profit project into a plastic recycling business is sure a great idea, but as I said the real strength of that is its open source nature. So, attempting to turn this project into a business, is on my view crucial not to “erase” this incredible feature, even if the simpliest way to gain money from this idea seems literally to give tutorials, knowledges and techniques only under payment, so giving effective access to the network only over the payment of a hypothetical entry fee.

If I should point out a clever way to earn money from this project, I would think about another feature of it: the network. The project’s mission says that anyone can start and can cover the entire production chain, from raw materials collection to selling activities: that’s a little world thinking in my opinion (of course wonderful on this view of non-profit project). The evolution from this single being logic to a real productive segmentation of the entire production chain could be the key success factor of a hypothetical profit-oriented business. From whom collects plastics to whom sells items out, from whom shreds wastes to whom melts them down, the segregation of duties can allow a more efficient production chain with a consequent gain in terms of earnings and perceived quality of the re-new product. Then the implementation of scale economies obtained thanks to the segregation of duties leads me to suggest to focus on a specific activity (or group of activities), working on real input/output trade and single duty.

An example of what’s above could be the following: a business (no.1) which collects raw plastic materials from wastes and sells them, or better, which also shreds those wastes into fine plastic crumbs, purchasable by (business no. 2) an entity that melts plastic to create simple and everyday objects, such as smartphone covers shown in the introductive video tape, maybe selling them on-line. To this extreme basic chain is possible to add everything you mind, an activity of raw covers painting, a segregation per-type of plastic collected, and why not, as mentioned, an IT tool such as an App or website that could in this case coordinate the trade along the production chain.

This is only one of the possible ideas to take money advantage from the project, hope you could agree. Have a nice day,

Stefano

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Stefano Garavaglia.

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2904

Good Afternoon everyone,

Waste nowadays, and especially plastic ones, are every more day a hotter topic concerning the health of Earth. I remember when I went in Wales for two weeks eight years ago, and I found out that my hosts were storing plastic bottles in summer, to later burn them as well as wood in the fireplace. I was pretty shocked getting to know their feelings about it: quite normal, it’s still fire!

From air pollution to marine one, plastic production and utilization is a serious threat for the environment and so is for the human being. The huge amount of trash collected by the pacific ocean is something scary, or at least should be so. And even if the 16 hours battery waste skark trying to clean up the mess could seem like David and Goliath, it’s amazing to find out in such many ways the problem could be faced, and hopefully solved in the long run.

This shark, the plastic blocking chains, and above all the volunteers and associations that spend whole days on boats aiming to remove as much plastic as possible from our coastlines are a fantastic exemple of what can be done, but since prevention is more efficient than “healing”, the solution should be seeked and found higher in the “plastic lifecycle”. At odds, instead of cleaning oceans after it has been thrown away (and I agree with Eunice), we should simply avoid single-use plastic production and utilization. In this way, if we lower the amount of trash production, heightening the amount of trash collection, the “Pacific Plastic France” will (hopefully) be removed one day.

Have a nice Evening,

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2890

Good morning everyone,
Going deeply in what are my thoughts about the future of startuppers and start-ups after Brexit, I really don’t know where to look. I think it’s early to make statements about it, since UK still covers the first place in funds raising with 5.4 bn dollars raised in 2017 (also in the voting year).

Of course in a “no deal” forecasted Brexit, London and UK will become less attractive for new European startups, who will probably choose another placement to bloom, according to the President of Mind the Bridge.

Referring to scaleups instead, he argues that they will not be affected by Brexit, since these are more complex and therefore it’s now “on cities” and not on countries anymore. Like Silicon Valley, a startupper doesn’t choose a Nation, he choose a pole, a city, to grow, since 7 UK scaleups on 10 are placed in London.

Even if the role of London is not changing a lot in the coming years, and even if the amount of funds raised last year represent the top of Europe, there’s a fastening in development of the “French London”. In fact, if the UK’s 5 and a half billion dollars are a primacy, France got a major number of few tens fundings referred to Great Britain.

So, even if the funds amount is not that high yet, it’s a positive signal for Europe. It is possible to assert, I believe, that this is a clear positive consequence brought by Brexit scenery, because as like as Paris every other European country could invest and laws-ease to attract startuppers and venture capital, as France did with a 10 billion euros investment plan in 4.0 Industry, Innovation and start-ups.

These facts known, if I should bet on a future “London Nemesis” I would therefore choose Paris, or maybe Berlin, or again a Scandinavian Capital. “The winner (will) takes it all”, therefore, is not applicable to the current situation, since I don’t think London will never be left behind. The position gained by Great Britain will guarantee to the City a leader role even after Brexit on my view.

The winner is the Country which will more invest on Innovation, which will more ease born and growth to startups, which goes further and faster than “competitors”.

What’s your opinion about these?

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2880

Good afternoon everyone,
I remember the period of the voting last year, I didn’t expect that the final result would be the one that is today. I think Great Britain citizens had voted on the wave crest, I think they had repent immediatly after, at least someone did. As I said in previous discussions, my position about this kind of moves is not favourable, It’s odd to think to better-do leaving the Union, and if we want to is even more odd to take the risk, because maybe it would be better with time passing: but the price?
Stated these points, I’m pretty convinced a Brexit without a deal would be the worst projection possible. The pound would lose even more value than the loss till nowadays, the Kingdom’s economy would fall, the rights of foreign workers: who knows?
With deals it would be surely better, and the GB premier has just declared the deal is almost done. So the best scenery should be a soft Brexit, and since that the market forecasted a hard brexit, the value of the coin would probably increase a little. For the same reasons a hard Brexit would change little in both internal and union economy, even if with a brake of growth and money value (of GB).
Were you favourable or against Brexit?
Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2871

Good afternoon everyone,

I find the early bloom of cherry blossoms amazing, but even warming if we want to screen these effects on every other aspect of nature’s and environment’s change. An event like this, everything but ordinary, is on my view supposedto be wrong, at least it should be. The world is going mad, the human being makes it cry, but in cases like this one it reacts laughing in such a beautiful way.

The earlier or later blooms are in Japan as like as the whole planet commons, if we refer to a deviation of a couple of weeks from the average. This time the Japan’s trees gone wrong of two entire seasons. Economically I’m not sure it’s going to be bad for Japan’s tourism: of course the increasing uncertainty of the blooming period will harm the most, but if the “spring is spreading” the amount of revenues could also increase on my view.

Thank you Benedetta for your tip!

Have a nice sunday,

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2859

Good Evening everyone,
Honestly to start I find IOS pretty impossible to use, and providing a not so good user experience, since every time I tried I failed as an 80 years old grandfather. Furthermore I retain the “exclusive” functions, like the ones that work only among Apple devices “wrong”, since there are not different levels of devices, you produce smartphones as any other producer: maybe better, surely more expensive, but still smartphones. And I say smartphone just to simplify. Of course I’m not saying Android is better, even if I think so: is just a habit factor on my view, my sister for example has a specular opinion from mine. I find Android easy, beautiful and free from restrictions.
About the imposed must to fee-charge smartphones producers who develope their products on Android to let them preinstall Google apps, I don’t think a lot will change, at least for customers, considering that the fee entity is not known yet. I also retain right the decision to let Google apps being payed for, even if as a customer who uses every app of Google property (among the most known) I think I should be quite worried. Above all, the fine is justified for what are my thoughts, and an abitual user of an app won’t quit using it just for these already mentioned reasons.

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2831

Good Evening everyone,
Still talking about social media, it seems like everything is concerned by social media nowadays, isn’t it?
I retain shameful the evaluation given to our stolen data and so to us, but still worse are the aims and the methods of those who committed these actions.
Thefts have always been existed, and forever they’ll be, but this kind of thefts are even worse, because the stolen goods, or better the stolen informations, which are (should be) reserved, are shared with everyone who wants to get them.
Fortunately, Facebook has implemented a way to find out if a profile has been hacked or not. This doesn’t repairs the wrongs, of course, but I find correct and fair the purposes of the Company.
Furthermore is possible to know everything that has been stolen, which means name, age, email address, phone number, relationship, faith, jobs and studies, and that’s really bad. But even worse, or better the worst stolen kind of datas are credit cards numbers and PayPal credentials. All of this due to a leak in security, about remaining logged in.
We must pay attention daily to every single action done online, from what we post to what we share. The most serious threat is on my view the personality theft, which can seriously compromise the health and serenity of the victims.
Concluding, I find fair the fact that Facebook’s gonna be fined up to over 1,5m dollars, even if as said, this does not repair the injuries. Maybe money should be used in better ways, in order to improve cybersecurity to avoid further events similar to this one. Does someone agree?
Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2829

Good afternoon guys,

while agreeing with Matilde about the environmental damages caused by automotive industry, I think it is worth discussing the economic effects that a “target reduction” of the emissions of carbon dioxide (still related to automotive) would have. Volkswagen’s CEO Herbert Diess warns about the consequences that this reduction is going to take with her, which are losses of employment. More specifically, European authorities aim to approve a CO2 reduction up to 35% within 2030, decision that is going to cause the loss of a quarter the jobs of the German group up to twelve years from now on, that is a loss of 100k jobs. Actually the decision has already been taken, but left to decide is the target, which lies within 30% and 40%. The first entity of cut has been defined reasonable by VW’s head Diess. Moreover he defined E-Mobility as a madness, arguing about the environmental impact of the production of batteries with non-clean energy. These cuts in carbon dioxide emission will, apart from being useful to our planet (and so to us), let European countries respect the Paris agreement. Well, I think now is right to ask ourselves about those jobs: I personally hope those numbers to be revisited, because new jobs are going to come and maybe the negative economic effects could be contained. The only way that remains to automotive industry is to improve the Electric mobility, since only in this way they can lower the emission average. This goes on with the market share rise of electric automobiles, aimed to 35% within the same previous year, 2030. I retain needful this change, because we’re using petrol engine since the second industrial revolution, but reaching the moon half a century ago. In conclusion, to get our planet healthier, I think it’s worth to face strong changes, and why not, a little bit of suffering.

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2814

Good morning,

About protectionism I want to say that it could work nowadays, and it’s working as I previously said. The only matter is not to go too far with it, because it could turn to autarchy, which maybe worked in the first half of the last century, and sure wouldn’t in this one. To valorize internal production and internal goods is awesome, but in a globalised economy is not possible to “close” your border to leave competitors outside and to keep yours inside. Stated that’s clear to him, let’s see where the protectionist policy will lead US and abroad nations to.

About the topic of climate change, I totally agree with those who say that ignoring it is a mistake, so I agree with everyone of you. I admire the integrity of Elon Musk, moving decisions coherent with his “green creed”. This topic reminds me of a free speech I wrote 5 years ago about the enviromental effort of Trump’s predecessor Obama, and I remember I loved the way he talked about climate change. I’m only adding one last thought, applicable of course to environment but also to many other themes, such as retirement age. Worrying about the climate change for you, taking care of the environment, of our planet for you, I think does not work. You are going to stay “here” for something like another half of a century, people in power really less than it. So, egoistically, “I’m not going to live the benefits of my efforts” is a perfect excuse. Who sows tamarinds doesn’t collect tamarinds. Everyone in the world should be propositive to change his mind, and to take care of our world for our world and for who’s coming next to us more than for himself. After all, we’re all on the same train.

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2787

Good morning everyone,
First I have to say is that I was not expecting anything bad, nay I was hoping him to win. His nationalism worked and is working in a country among the most internal tax weighted in the world, threatening offshoring companies with high border taxation. Internal consumption of internal produced goods is seen by consumers as more right and more “American”. I found fantastic, above all, the use that’s done by him of Twitter. With a social network is possible to threat, to explain and to gratify important economic subjects as for example Ford or Toyota, threatened and bad advertised by the President. Furthermore the expected lowering of taxes is supposed to intensify the effects of his self-sufficiency policy, with a following boost of internal production hopefully.

The point is: will the effects of this policy, clearly supporting US while penalizing abroad nations, have a negative returns on United States by those last?

Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2779

Just a misunderstanding Linda, I’d like to apologize with you too! I found really positive your will to look forward to what’s next, or even more, right. I’d also like to share with you all an experience about marketing based on GPS. Yesterday a friend of mine, simply by walking in front of and staring to watch an earplugs shop the day before, got the banner advertising of that specific good! That’s not based on cookies or research history but on Geolocalization: awesome. This is just to argue about my agreeing with the progressist thesis that’s found in this debate.
Waiting for the following-up conversation,
Stefano

[Stefano Garavaglia]

#2769

I’m sorry Linda, that’s not what I meant with “being driven”. I’m not expecting that technology itself will never change anything, but I was arguing that we (humans) must try not only to apply it to improve what is already known, but also to be opened to new fields of employment that aren’t known yet (I realize it was not that clear). I’m not sure what you think my point of view is, but surely it’s not negative, better it’s careful. What can be called “past” can also be called “reality” (photographs are just a metaphor), and the border between this and technology must be today more than yesterday well marked, to avoid our lives to fall into Matrix Trilogy movie (still an hyperbole). In conclusion I’m totally favorable to technology improvement and application, agreeing with all of you.

This is only a further explanation, since I totally respect every other point of view that differs from mine!

Have a nice evening, Stefano.

[Author]

Posts