Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

news.ycombinator.com

531–540 of 545 posts

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#531
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Would you do it for animals too? It would suck to live for 400 years but your dog dies in only 10. How would people remember everything? How would you spend all that time? What would everyone do? Is this just for rich people or do poor people get to live for centuries too? Haven't done the math but if 8 billion people lived for say 500 years each, plus new arrivals constantly, wouldn't we accumulate rath…

> Is this just for rich people or do poor people get to live for centuries too? "centuries" is far too short-term; "forever" is the goal, and "centuries" just buys enough time to get there. And of course that lifespan should be available to everyone. If the solution itself doesn't already imply a post-scarcity world, then it'll help that once you have a cure for aging, it's more economical to supply that to everyone…

Living for centuries would be absolutely awful. Death is necessary. It's the world's chnge-agent. Think about how slow the rates of social progress would be without death.

Also the fact that life is only a fleeting moment in time is beautiful and again, I believe necessary.

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#532
Focus on things that can't be funded in traditional academia, yet which are public goods and so cannot be funded by startups.

Project that have one or more of the following characteristics:

1) requires a large amount of implementation work and real-world trials before you know if it's a good idea

2) a long project, but if it fails, there may be no publishable intermediate results (in academia, we stay away from long projects unless they are publishable no matter what the result turns out to be; b/c at the end of grad school, or your postdoc, or your tenure clock, you need a publication in order to remain in academia)

3) reform of academic funding (it's not advisable to pitch an NSF government official to fund a project that only makes sense if NSF government officials are unnecessary)

4) success criterion is a matter of taste, rather than objective (or, maybe the true success criterion is objective but too expensive to measure, so taste must be substituted as a proxy success criterion)

5) creation of useful artifacts, rather than new knowledge

6) requires ongoing maintenance in order to remain useful to society

7) more a matter of putting together or implementing existing ideas in a wholistic way than discovery of novel ideas

Examples:

* alternative systems to allocate research funding (satisfies #1,3,4)

* creation of new programming languages (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7)

* open-source software development (5, 6)

* creation of new software-supported governance procedures (1, 4, 7)

* creation of new legal structures (for remote working open co-ops, etc) (1, 4, 5)

* direct attacks on the Millennium problems in math (1)

* upgrades to the academic peer review process (1, 4, 6)

* alternative systems for hiring professors (1, 3, 4)

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#533
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Is this just for rich people or do poor people get to live for centuries too? > "centuries" is far too short-term; "forever" is the goal, and "centuries" just buys enough time to get there. And of course that lifespan should be available to everyone. If the solution itself doesn't already imply a post-scarcity world, then it'll help that once you have a cure for aging, it's more economical to supply that to every…

> You do know that every culture, since the beginning of time, has thought that they would live to be immortal in their lifetime. What makes you think you're different? Sure, you might have a better chance, but it's still a slim chance. A slim chance is infinitely better than no chance at all. How many cultures had even the remotest chance of actually doing something about it? And no, I'm not certain it'll happen in…

> > You do know that every culture, since the beginning of time, has thought that they would live to be immortal in their lifetime. What makes you think you're different? Sure, you might have a better chance, but it's still a slim chance.

> A slim chance is infinitely better than no chance at all. How many cultures had even the remotest chance of actually doing something about it?

None, and we're no different. Why would we be?

> And no, I'm not certain it'll happen in my lifetime. I'd say that I'd be sad and disappointed if that didn't happen,

Well, no. You'll be dead. Dead people aren't disappointed.

> I also consider it worth advocating, to encourage others to push for the same goal, or at the very least discourage others from perpetuating arguments that shut down such efforts.

I don't agree that it's worth advocating. Yes, curing diseases and other such things is a worthwhile goal. But the goal of living forever is just selfish. Note that children couldn't exist in a world where people live forever (otherwise we'd run out of resources even faster than we are now).

> > Actually living forever would be a greater hell than anything I can imagine.

> Then don't. But I'd suggest trying it first, or significantly expanding your imagination.

I have a very vivid imagination. That's how I came to that conclusion. Also, how can I "try it"?

> > After the first few hundred years, when you realise that it's never going to end, after you've read every book and done all you've wanted to do, what then?

> With all the imagination you can bring to bear, and a universe full of possibilities, you can only think of a few hundred years worth of things to do before you'd not only get bored but get so bored you'd long for death?

Yes. Why do you think any differently? Evolution has placed a cap on our lifespan, because living longer than that wasn't better for our species. Have you considered that? Why do you think we'd be able to contribute anything meaningful to the world after we are 80 years old? Aside from helping younger generations (which don't exist in your world), we have nothing left to do.

More than 98% of people who ever lived are dead. It's incredibly arrogant (and akin to a tantruming child) to assume that you will survive.

> To give even a minimal lower bound based on your own comment, books and stories are already being written today faster than they can be read. And that's only one of myriad possibilities. A few minutes imagination can easily produce far more interesting ones.

I'm a scientist (as well as programmer). So I can imagine spending several hundred years trying to solve all of the scientific problems that exist. But after a few hundred years, I'll definitely get bored of that. So, I'll have to move on to something else.

> Do you currently get bored with life and want it to end? If not, then why do you expect that to change in only a few hundred years?

No. But that doesn't mean I won't get bored of it eventually. Not to mention that I can see myself being bored with , and no doubt I'll eventually get bored of all of the things that make me a productive member of society. At that point, I'm a drain on the world's resources. What benefit is there to keeping me alive?

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, so our descendants can work 70 hour weeks for 120 years rather than just 30.

Nobody will have a job in 30 years, so I wouldn't worry about it.

You must be young. That's what people were saying 50 years ago. When I was in high school the reason I was told we had to learn square dancing was because in the future we would have so much leisure time.

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#536
post #129

http://sens.org/ . Humans need more lifespan, badly. I’d have said AI safety, but it’s already on your list. Excellent. I’d also have said basic income. Good to know you’re on it. Meta-research. Academic publishing is obsolete, and knowledge should not be paywalled. How many researchers already make use of https://www.reddit.com/r/scholar or http://sci-hub.io/ ? Bacteriophages. Antibiotics are running out, while phag…

> Academic publishing is obsolete To expand upon this, it's not just publishing papers behind paywalls that is the problem. The entire system we use to advance humanities shared knowledge is broken. The Internet enables a dramatically more efficient model of scientific collaboration. The problem is academic science has been stuck with a reward system from the 17th century. And quite simply, it does not reward what we…

I think the computer science department has used internet really well with the open source projects. But, the same can't be said of most experimental sciences. In life sciences, we sometimes wait a few years from when an idea strikes a researcher to academic publication. An open-source collaborative approach could have immensely sped up progress. Not only that, the academic papers often describe only the experiments that succeeded. Anyone trying to reproduce the result will make the same mistakes as the original authors. What a blatant waste of human brain hours!

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, so our descendants can work 70 hour weeks for 120 years rather than just 30.

Nobody will have a job in 30 years, so I wouldn't worry about it.

We'll always need someone to man the machines

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#539
post #414

If everything goes, please research a viable way to open borders globally. Not only is there tremendous economic potential energy there, but national borders are sadly one of the few openly discriminating policies out there, a major source of inequality and injustice. I would love to see progress towards that end.

How can HN promote capitalism on one hand, and open borders on the other? Open borders is the classic pre-cursor to a worldwide Tragedy of the Commons. Currently, we have problems keeping public parks clean. Imagine if all of the earth was a shared commons, and no group of people could restrict access to any plot of land. It would be chaos. I can think of no better way to destroy the world than open borders. Look int…

Perhaps you can elaborate in how you see open borders as a case for tragedy of the commons? I do not mean that all plots of lands can be accessed by any individual, but more like any individual can access any jurisdiction of any country. A situation more akin to the EU, but in a global scale.

Re: Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

#540

Finally a good LISP.)

No, really. Like Golang - compiling to native code, have a thin layer of proper abstractions, a-la Inferno, reusing OS ABI to dlload and call everything, no Windows support. No VMs - x8664 is a pretty good VM itself. Also learn to stop worrying and love a good OS (the way Golang does).

Mostly functional, with immutable data, which makes really difficult things (runtime) simpler.

With CL compatibility as a package.)

Post reply on HN