Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Innovation is almost entirely absent

post-gazette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#11

Post by Dn_Ab »

zasz wrote: post #8
_gd3l wrote: post #7

Assuming that innovation truly is dwindling (not saying it is, just saying it is for this argument), maybe it's just because of exponential growth. Think of the graph of the square root of X[1]; as x increases rapidly, the change in Y gradually gets smaller and smaller. Maybe as advances in technology increase rapidly (as they have for the past many thousands of years), the amount of true innovation gets smaller and…

The square root of s x is not an exponential function.

Maybe he was looking for a logistic curve. Although I am not sure that any 2D graph of innovation has real meaning.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#12

Post by ArchD »

Is it possible that human beings in "developed nations" are too comfortable to seriously want innovation as a whole? If your basic physical needs as a society are already met, what motivation do you have to develop better technology?

Perhaps a small group of people/organizations are open to the change inherent with technology development/deployment, but a large group likes the status quo because they are uncomfortable with the uncertainty that comes with change that may affect them adversely for the short term. The net result would be that the society as a whole is more sluggish to change in a directed manner. Without an explicit high-level mandate like "Every year, we will spend at least 10% of revenue on R&D in such and such an area.", it's harder for things to change.

I might even venture that a society without strong top-level mandates/directives like that is like a a human being who has sensations, and reflexes, but no conscious control over his body, or even self-awareness. This may be an exaggeration but that's an idea.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#13

Post by bluedanieru »

justincormack wrote: post #3
beej71 wrote: post #2

The state of the art was stuck at a crappy free market local max, where no one was willing to invest in a thing that might pay off later. Turns out, we all win; someone just had to bite the bullet and fork up the sweetener. But we really should have smelled an opportunity here. Like the article says, what else are we missing?

The article presents it like that, but oil companies actually have a huge incentive to make better faster cheaper cleanup, as they have to pay the cleanup costs. I suspect though they are not really paying enough though to incentivise them, and they should pay higher fines for externalities like spills, eg based on amounts of non recovered oil.

They pay nothing close to the cost of the cleanup. Exxon paid less than half of the cost of the Valdez spill, and recovered most of that from insurance claims anyway. They have held up on appeal further damages awarded by the courts for twenty-two fucking years. They still haven't paid.

If you think BP is going to pay anything close to the cost of the Deepwater Horizon spill, you really haven't been paying attention. The fact is that buying a stake in the legislature and the courts provides a much better ROI than investing in cleanup technologies.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#14

Post by anamax »

bluedanieru wrote: post #13
justincormack wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article presents it like that, but oil companies actually have a huge incentive to make better faster cheaper cleanup, as they have to pay the cleanup costs. I suspect though they are not really paying enough though to incentivise them, and they should pay higher fines for externalities like spills, eg based on amounts of non recovered oil.

They pay nothing close to the cost of the cleanup. Exxon paid less than half of the cost of the Valdez spill, and recovered most of that from insurance claims anyway. They have held up on appeal further damages awarded by the courts for twenty-two fucking years . They still haven't paid. If you think BP is going to pay anything close to the cost of the Deepwater Horizon spill, you really haven't been paying attention…

> recovered most of that from insurance claims anyway

Insurance companies don't lose money in the long run, so Exxon paid that money too.

Insurance companies make extra money by charging for more risk than is actually present. One way they can do that is by making certain things a condition of insurability.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#15

Post by grannyg00se »

I like the message - more innovation please. But the article contains some questionable passages. For example:

"Both wind and solar technologies require tremendous capital expenditures before they can be brought to the market and scale up to production. In contrast, a radically improved internal combustion engine could be easily produced with existing industrial capabilities and quickly dropped into the global car production cycle."

This seems to indicate that the author believes that a radical design change could be easily produced. But who's to say that a radical design change wouldn't require radically different capabilities? And as far as I can tell, the ICE has definitely seen improvements in efficiency not only in years where there was government involvement. Sure, it hasn't been "disrupted" with another technology, but that doesn't mean there is no innovation.

And what exactly is a "sexy technology"? How would a radical development in ICEs be less sexy than a radical development in battery tech or solar, or computing?

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#16

Post by narrator »

We don't have civilian super-sonic flight or manned space flight anymore. I'd say in some ways we're slipping backwards as far as technological progress is concerned. Progress in energy technology is particularly pathetic. Nuclear energy was discovered in the 30s and no significant new source of power has been developed since (Solar isn't significant).

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#17

Post by jeffreymcmanus »

narrator wrote: post #16

We don't have civilian super-sonic flight or manned space flight anymore. I'd say in some ways we're slipping backwards as far as technological progress is concerned. Progress in energy technology is particularly pathetic. Nuclear energy was discovered in the 30s and no significant new source of power has been developed since (Solar isn't significant).

If you're on the international space station, solar is indeed significant.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#18

Post by wyclif »

narrator wrote: post #16

We don't have civilian super-sonic flight or manned space flight anymore. I'd say in some ways we're slipping backwards as far as technological progress is concerned. Progress in energy technology is particularly pathetic. Nuclear energy was discovered in the 30s and no significant new source of power has been developed since (Solar isn't significant).

Isn't it possible that manned space flight could be considered "slipping backward"? Unmanned space flight is supposed to be an advance because it doesn't put human life at risk, IOW it's an efficiency.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#19

Post by Jach »

wyclif wrote: post #18
narrator wrote: post #16

We don't have civilian super-sonic flight or manned space flight anymore. I'd say in some ways we're slipping backwards as far as technological progress is concerned. Progress in energy technology is particularly pathetic. Nuclear energy was discovered in the 30s and no significant new source of power has been developed since (Solar isn't significant).

Isn't it possible that manned space flight could be considered "slipping backward"? Unmanned space flight is supposed to be an advance because it doesn't put human life at risk, IOW it's an efficiency.

Not to mention if we're ever going to map the galaxy within a mere 200 million years, we'll need autonomous probes capable of making copies of themselves.

Re: Innovation is almost entirely absent

#20

Post by po »

jeffreymcmanus wrote: post #6

Another example of a misuse of the phrase "disruptive innovation". The writer marvels at the fact that nearly no venture dough is thrown at the internal combustion engine. But investment in gas-burning engines would be a sustaining, not disruptive, innovation. Hybrid and electric engines are the disruptive innovations here, and plenty of investment is being done in this area.

Not to mention the fact that the internal combustion engine, while it might not receive a lot of venture capital, probably has more money going into research and eyeballs on it than most other technologies. Between the various big motor R&D departments, F1 teams, and even backyard tinkering, there are probably not many more-studied problems.

A modern engine might only be about 20-30% efficient compared to it's theoretical output but most of the energy loss is not in the engine, it's in the aerodynamic drag. Second is probably driving outside of the optimal power band: exactly what hybrid technology addresses. This was a bad choice by the author to make an otherwise good point.

Post reply on HN