Identifying the biggest solutions

<p>I was reading [[<a class="litnote tooltip" href="/literature/@gates2021">@gates2021<span class="tooltiptext">How to avoid a climate disaster: the solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need</span></a>]] and there's a section in which he discusses that when hearing pitches of companies, a threshold to continue the conversation is how big the solution is. This happens in the context of <a class="wikilink" href="/climate_change/">climate change</a> and <a class="wikilink" href="/reducing_carbon_emissions/">reducing carbon emissions</a>, but the same framework can be applied to any context of <a class="wikilink" href="/pitching_a_startup/">pitching a startup</a>. </p> <p>When doing <a class="wikilink" href="/things_that_can_scale/">things that can scale</a>, it is important to have a grasp of how much they can scale. Again, in the context of climate, where resources are scarce, a company trying to tackle around 0.1% of the problem should not be prioritized over one tackling 10% of the problem. </p> <p>This is relatively easy to do in a context with a very clearly defined metric (tonnes of $CO_2$) but perhaps not so much in other contexts. Especially when dealing with <a class="wikilink" href="/venture_capitalists/">venture capitalists</a>, a metric (although very superficial) can be the <a class="wikilink" href="/total_addressable_market/">total addressable market</a>. It can be a clear proxy for people who understood the context in which they operate, and go for the most impactful solution.</p>