It is surprisingly hard to express "the primary demographic for startup founders at the moment is nepobaby failsons" in a way that's appropriate for consumption by investors.

[iris_meredith@mastodon.social]

@clew I'm trying to persuade them to support affordable, high-density housing close to the city centre. With good public transport connections.

[clew@ecoevo.social]

and explaining why this five dollar bill is on the sidewalk?

(nepobaby failsons don't understand where people need to live)

@iris_meredith

[shom@gts.shom.dev]

@iris_meredith spot on! LinkedIn version would read like

The primary demographic for startup founders are dynastic entrepreneurs with expertise and capital exclusively provided by titans of industry as a vote of confidence in increasingly more ambitious endeavors.

[darkuncle@infosec.exchange]

@shom @iris_meredith @mayintoronto s/more ambitious/dubious/

[shom@gts.shom.dev]

@darkuncle yes exactly, that's the LinkedIn translation.
@iris_meredith @mayintoronto

[path72@mstdn.social]

@iris_meredith @shom a truer word has never been spoken

[aimeemaroux@mastodon.social]

@iris_meredith I wonder if this has ever not been the main demographic for start-ups 🫠

[iris_meredith@mastodon.social]

@AimeeMaroux Oh, probably, but we could make it less so and I think it'd benefit everyone.

[fxiz@mastodon.social]

@iris_meredith then what is the problem with this setup? If it's just ambitious start-up with no substance, then they will just burn their money, status quo breaks, they, you, both same now.
If it's a start up that actually works, they are no nepobabies, they are inventors. I don't think there is any problem with some being rich, and intelligent, or is there?

[aimeemaroux@mastodon.social]

@iris_meredith Oh for sure! It would be nice if good ideas were not dependent on the potential to extract profit either.