He didn't school anybody, he apparently doesn't appreciate real technology development, which he should because the DoD is the largest single purchaser of it.<p><i>if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences</i><p>Yet again we see the results of people outside of tech focusing on these technologies that get headlines.<p>Quality Tech does deal in affordability, fail safes, and unintended consequences. Tesla specifically took this approach, as does Apple, palantir etc... not to mention myriad companies focusing on verticals across income and accessibility levels.<p>I think this statement, especially in light of the recent document published by the govt on artificial intelligence, is likely political more than indighting tech for being myopic.
"You don't understand government, because you've only been in business."<p>-Said by the guy who doesn't understand business because he's only been in government.
> But there’s lots of collateral damage inherent in the free market — in “blowing up the system,” as Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like to say. Such explosions are great for the bomb manufacturers, but not so much for innocent bystanders.<p>This seems to be the overlooked point here. In business, it can be profitable to disrupt and go after sweeping changes. In government, you can hurt real people in large numbers by doing so.<p>Also, the article isn't implying that companies can't or won't do good. Companies can certainly work well across income ranges. The point is, that's still a different goal than working well across <i>all</i> income ranges.