Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#31

Post by cowmix » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #26

starpilot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground,…

> He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not techni…

Well, I'm not sure what part of the SpaceX timeline you are talking about but his "money, enthusiasm, and naivety" certainly has brought the company very, very far in the past 17+ years.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#32

Post by jason5543 » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

zackmorris wrote: post #14

To me, the next great challenge of our time isn't finding the next SpaceX, but gradually dismantling the corporate dogma of full employment. The short-term goals should be along the lines of getting to a 30-hour work week, a single-payer healthcare system, free college and UBI from an automation moonshot. The long-term goals should be about how to get everyone in the world self-actualized, but doing it sustainably so…

Whoa! Zack, I am a reporter for a local paper and I'd like to interview you for a piece about humble internet futurists. Could you give me your email so that I could send you a couple questions about rolling back corporate dogma and achieving 30 hour work weeks?

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#33

Post by Diederich » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #27

nickik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are still slipping on Elon and how brilliant he is. He is legit the chief designer of the Falcon 9 rocket and of Starship not just the chief executive. That is not just some honorary title. He made every important choice on every important technical decision. He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon. People sometimes want to po…

would you mind pointing out some resources that back up your claims? they read like fiction.

One example: an interview with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman

https://youtu.be/GNG6ZzDh9C8?t=383

I'm a fan of Musk's work, but there's plenty to criticize about the man.

However, there's little doubt that he's an extremely smart person.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#34

Post by api » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

felipeko wrote: post #25

api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're referring to what I call "pop Austrianism," and that's definitely an adjacent issue. Austrianism is a rationalistic theory of economics. By rationalistic in this context I mean it's not empirical. It's the sort of thing you get when smart people sit around and reason through something and come to a conclusion based on that alone without bothering to observe, experiment, or evaluate their ideas in practice. A w…

I may be way of my field here, but my understanding is that the whole point of the Austrian school is that human behavior is (purposeful, but) unpredictable. This is a testable claim, and you can bother to observe, experiment and test this claim. Austrians should accept they are wrong if you can empirically prove that humans behavior is predictable. But if this claim is correct, there's no reason for you to do empiri…

The thing that really doesn't seem to work in the Austrian model is the whole "hard money" superstition... the idea that money should be an immutable store of value. I really think it is a superstition of sorts, since I don't think the rationale or the underlying model work in the real world.

Not only does this seem to fall down in a variety of ways in practice, but I have philosophical issues with it. The value in the economy is in capital, goods, and services. Money has no value. You can't eat it, drink it, live in it, or use it for anything. It's a medium of value exchange, not a value of its own.

In fact one of the desirable characteristics of money is that it's useless for other purposes, otherwise those other purposes compete with its money use case. Cryptocurrency does check that box, but so far all popular cryptocurrencies are built on hard money assumptions. It would be theoretically possible to build a cryptocurrency that wasn't, but there are issues like how to make the inflation targeting algorithm not be trivially game-able by 'whales.' (Real world whales do in fact try to game central banks, so this is not fiction... of course central banks are AI-complete so they have a better chance of resisting this.)

Most of the affinity for Austrianism is really rooted in a dislike for central banking and the assumed authoritarianism that goes with it, but I am not convinced that these issues are intrinsically inseparable. I don't see why libertarianism necessitates Austrian hard money finance or why hard money prohibits totalitarianism in any way. Since totalitarians have guns they can easily just confiscate and monopolize any hard currency. Cryptocurrency is no different, since rubber hose cryptography is highly effective.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#35

Post by jseliger » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

zackmorris wrote: post #14

To me, the next great challenge of our time isn't finding the next SpaceX, but gradually dismantling the corporate dogma of full employment. The short-term goals should be along the lines of getting to a 30-hour work week, a single-payer healthcare system, free college and UBI from an automation moonshot. The long-term goals should be about how to get everyone in the world self-actualized, but doing it sustainably so…

A big help would be reforming local land use codes: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/zoning-lan...:

This study reviews evidence on the effects of zoning and land-use regulation in three related areas: housing supply, housing affordability, and economic growth. The academic research on property regulation indicates that increased regulation is associated with a decline in supply, affordability, and growth. The literature indicates the effects are large, with a recent study suggesting that—because of regulation—economic growth declined by 50 percent and economic output declined by 8.9 percent between 1964 and 2009.

Imagine having everyone's usable income rise between 8.9% and as much as 50%! That's a huge benefit. We are seeing some efforts in that direction: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates... but not as much as we should.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#36

Post by lukebuehler » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #28

>> Those companies have to be run completely differently because the stakes are so much higher. I can't dismiss Elons drive, ability to get his hands dirty, and many other characteristics. But the primary difference I see in this comparison is simply risk aversion. YC and their VCs are in it to make money by placing a number of small bets, knowing some will be losers. To go big like SpaceX requires you to be all in.…

> He's willing to take that risk because he's in it for the results, not the money.

Well put. Whatever anyone has to say about the man, the most incredible thing about Elon is that he finds ways to pursue his crazy ideals while somehow staying profitable.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#37

Post by aidenn0 » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

avmich wrote: post #16

starpilot wrote: post #11

Blue Origin was founded two years before SpaceX. Knowing only what was public around that time, would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? SpaceX seemed riskier, Musk was all-in and he had a string of spectacular launch failures. BO had the Amazon warchest at its disposal, SpaceX just Musk's personal funds. Both looked like jokes at the time to my aerospace colleagues.

> would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? I'd say both have good chances. I'm actually surprised BO doesn't have better achievements by now. > Both looked like jokes at the time to my aerospace colleagues. I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Br…

> I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Braun, Korolev) could, I'm sure, understand Musk, but aerospace professionals of 1990-2000 were trained in rather different world.

My dad recently retired as an aerospace professional. There was an event which he said removed any doubt from the entire industry that SpaceX was real; I don't remember when exactly it was, but SpaceX had a launch, aborted the launch fairly late in the countdown, and then re-prepped and launched in time to make the launch window.

He said any other orbital rocket would require a minimum of several hours turnaround when aborting that late. Fixing this in a legacy rocket was just not going to happen, and SpaceX made it look easy.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#38

Post by szczepano » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

Why can't we just build robots and lay at home while driving them across galactic or build a big aquarium for brain like in futurama ? Touching can be stimulated by hardware, people wake up.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#39

Post by avmich » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #26

starpilot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground,…

> He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not techni…

> musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings

I'm almost sure he'd be laughed out of many meetings today, if his name would be different - i.e. nobody would think he's behind SpaceX vision. Not all meetings, but many. Imagining an aerospace professional - somebody in a position of Tony Bruno talking with a guy John Smith, when that John Smith describes similar vision and approaches to SpaceX, I can too easily imagine that aerospace professional dismissing him too easily.

That's not about Musk. That's about modern aerospace.

> i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for.

Hm. I didn't catch Musk on too blatant physical errors (I might be not a perfect examiner though :) ), but the thing is, "the rocket science is not a rocket science". Building rockets these days is many, many times easier that half a century ago. You don't need Einstein's level of sharpness to get pretty good results.

> bezos has a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from princeton. not sure what you consider technical.

Well, title of CEO in Amazon may have a large negative effect on technical abilities of a person. I've seen people with cum laude science Ph.D's from top world technical universities which are much happier with management and don't demonstrate technical abilities too much. So, "Bezos ...is not technical" may be unrelated to his degrees.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#40

Post by starpilot » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #26

starpilot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground,…

> He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not techni…

Yeah, EE/CS in aerospace is non-technical in this context. The key is physical understanding of mechanics, which programmers seem to lack. Understanding concepts of spatial vectors, summing up forces, adding/removing energy and the effects on temperature, you need to have a tangble feel of these concepts, as well as be able to calculate them rigorously, to design rockets. A physics student would have this, while someone whose primary coursework was on OS design, data structures, optimizing memory usage etc. would not. It's a very different world.

I don't think it's fair, but in aerospace companies, the programmers, even doing important avionics work, are considered closer to IT than they are to core vehicle design. If you got rid of all of them you could still design a vehicle, as we did before.