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

Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

horsesaysinternet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#41

Post by confluence »

crusso wrote: post #38
confluence wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix. > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. > if you can see where something could be g…

Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix. No one disagrees that all inventions build upon older ideas and inventions. Your attempt to redefine what the word…

You do realize that there were other video hosting sites founded just before and just after YouTube. If they didn't exist someone else would have taken their place. Any individual person or team is not special. There are always equivalent teams out there that would have gladly taken their place. If you understand the concepts of evolution, path dependence, statistical randomness, catastrophic failure and causality you would realise that ideas and people are a product of their times and not the other way around.

Whoever said that DNA was the only thing to have been created from randomness. There were probably many self-reproducing molecules created by randomness. It does not follow that DNA was special or that any one strand was - there were always analogues ready to take its place. What was special was the environment these molecules evolved in.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#42

Post by confluence »

Someone wrote: post #35
confluence wrote: post #12

Let me just ask - When has anyone ever actually invented anything totally new? The telephone? It was referred to as the "speaking telegraph" (telegraph + speakers). The car? Horseless carriage (engine + wheels + steering + brakes) The plane? Glider + engine. The Wright brothers invented powered flight - not flight. The difficulty was getting the weight to lift ratio high enough with a primitive heavy engine on board.…

But weren't these things new precisely because the only way to describe them was using already existing words? If the telephone wasn't a new thing, why didn't we have a word for it yet? Also, I think you are undervaluing the worth of that discovering a use for some combination of things that have existed for ages. I think that even can be true if that combination, in hindsight, looks like a simple continuation of exi…

Perhaps.

However any new idea always has multiple origins. The combination may be novel but there are always others iterating on the same problem at the same time (remember Leibniz and Newton? Or Marconi and Tesla? Or everyone else?).

The only reason you think they are unique is because of success bias. You only remember the winners. But just because someone won - it does not follow that they were unique or the best. It just means they just happened to win.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#43

Post by confluence »

Retric wrote: post #30
confluence wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps but my point still stands.

? You can say everything is just a pattern using a relatively small set of elementary particles. And that's more or less true, but once you start moving back eventually you will find two hydrogen atoms that where cold enough to stick together for the first time, and guess what that had no prior precedence. So to the line that separates a true multicellular organism from a colony of related cells that assist each othe…

Ah but you see my friend that first collision was due to the combination of the four fundamental forces acting on the products of quantum physics. Indeed the only truly original "idea" is the big bang.

However there are indications that it too is neither unique nor special and may very well itself be a simulation or a small part of an infinite multiverse.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#44

Post by crusso »

confluence wrote: post #41
crusso wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix. No one disagrees that all inventions build upon older ideas and inventions. Your attempt to redefine what the word…

You do realize that there were other video hosting sites founded just before and just after YouTube. If they didn't exist someone else would have taken their place. Any individual person or team is not special. There are always equivalent teams out there that would have gladly taken their place. If you understand the concepts of evolution, path dependence, statistical randomness, catastrophic failure and causality yo…

Any individual person or team is not special.

Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society.

In my personal life, I've known a few special people who are smart enough to be visionaries with acceptably unique visions in their fields. They inspired and drove others around them and produced successful enterprises while our competitors floundered. Without them, we would have been mediocre like our competitors.

If Steve Jobs had not returned to Apple, Apple would not have become dominant and might just have gone out of business. I was there. We had Sculley, Amelio, etc. They put the lie to your "no one is special" theory. They failed and almost drove the company out of business. Jobs came along and completely turned the company around. He made it look easy.

there are always analogues ready to take its place.

Citation for successful analogues to DNA driving multi-cellular life, please. We know of none. Any analogues that may have developed to prevent or replace DNA's rise may well have never advanced beyond simple single cells. I'd say it's a ridiculous notion that an analogue to DNA would have filled the vacuum if DNA hadn't come to pass.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#45

Post by crusso »

confluence wrote: post #40
crusso wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if I had to make a choice between Einstein being special or the time being special I'd pick the time any day. So if you're hiring someone to fill a role at your organization, I guess you don't need to interview them? Just put a warm body in the chair and the magic will happen? Alternatively, why do you post to HN? The situation is here without you. Why do you consider your thoughts and opinions to be special enou…

Just because I said that people weren't special - it does not follow that all people for all jobs are equivalent. If you look at the development of any theory or invention you'll notice that there are multiple origins that converge to a single feature (just like - wait for it - EVOLUTION!). Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place.

Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place.

If that were the case, then history would be one steady series of progressions that would look the same from isolated geographic region to isolated geographic region and from culture to culture.

The American Indians would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Europeans. The Australian Aborigines would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Chinese. The Incans would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the British.

They didn't. We have records that tell us about the individuals and groups who had ideas that significantly affected the course of history. Your argument is completely contradicted by even a cursory examination of the historical record.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#46

Post by confluence »

crusso wrote: post #44
confluence wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that there were other video hosting sites founded just before and just after YouTube. If they didn't exist someone else would have taken their place. Any individual person or team is not special. There are always equivalent teams out there that would have gladly taken their place. If you understand the concepts of evolution, path dependence, statistical randomness, catastrophic failure and causality yo…

Any individual person or team is not special. Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society. In my personal life, I've known a few special people who are smart enough to be visionaries with acceptably unique visions in their fields. They inspired and drove others around them and produced successful enterprises while our competitors floundered. Without them, we would have…

> Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society.

Irrelevant. These observations are coloured by selection bias.

> successful enterprises while our competitors floundered

What about all the visionaries that failed? What about the non-visionaries that succeeded?

> Without them, we would have been mediocre like our competitors.

Presumption that competitors would not have done what you had done given enough time. Presumption also that your success makes you not mediocre - when in fact it merely indicates success.

> If Steve Jobs had not returned to Apple

Some other company would've released a mp3 player, a tablet and a smart phone. Your not that special - it is foolish to be arrogant enough to think that you deserve what you get and that because your sole reason for success is your own work. This is a fundamental attribution error.

> They failed and almost drove the company out of business

Jobs came back in 1997 correct? After Windows reached its dominance correct? So the cash stops bleeding just after Windows has dominated and there is really nothing left to do but join up with them.

> He made it look easy.

Maybe because it was.

> Citation for successful analogues to DNA driving multi-cellular life

Well how do you know DNA was unique and special? Because it succeeded? That does not follow. What if the environment changed - such that it favoured DNA molecules over another just through randomness - well then the other molecules get wiped out.

It is foolhardy to assume that DNA could be the only useful substrate for multi-cellular life. But we can't rerun the damn test because - wait for it - EXTREME PATH DEPENDENCE.

I end this conversation.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#47

Post by confluence »

crusso wrote: post #45
confluence wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because I said that people weren't special - it does not follow that all people for all jobs are equivalent. If you look at the development of any theory or invention you'll notice that there are multiple origins that converge to a single feature (just like - wait for it - EVOLUTION!). Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place.

Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place. If that were the case, then history would be one steady series of progressions that would look the same from isolated geographic region to isolated geographic region and from culture to culture. The American Indians would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Europeans. The Australian Aborigines would have developed…

> The American Indians would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Europeans

Wrong.

Just because I indicated that others may take there place - it does not follow that anyone - anywhere could. For Einstein - another European physicist could've taken his place. For the Romans - barbarians could've taken their place (and did - remember the Mongols?). For America - the Spanish could've taken their place (too bad they lost the Spanish Armada thanks to a war started by trying to build an empire using the wealth of silver mined in South America which weakened their North American position and give Louisiana to the French who themselves were weakened by war and sold it to the Americans).

Do you know why? EXTREME PATH DEPENDENCE since all things are the accumulation of local ideas/effects - as per causality/evolution.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#48

Post by Retric »

confluence wrote: post #43
Retric wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? You can say everything is just a pattern using a relatively small set of elementary particles. And that's more or less true, but once you start moving back eventually you will find two hydrogen atoms that where cold enough to stick together for the first time, and guess what that had no prior precedence. So to the line that separates a true multicellular organism from a colony of related cells that assist each othe…

Ah but you see my friend that first collision was due to the combination of the four fundamental forces acting on the products of quantum physics. Indeed the only truly original "idea" is the big bang. However there are indications that it too is neither unique nor special and may very well itself be a simulation or a small part of an infinite multiverse.

Lol, that's confusing patterns with reality, but nice try ;)

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#49

Post by confluence »

Retric wrote: post #48
confluence wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah but you see my friend that first collision was due to the combination of the four fundamental forces acting on the products of quantum physics. Indeed the only truly original "idea" is the big bang. However there are indications that it too is neither unique nor special and may very well itself be a simulation or a small part of an infinite multiverse.

Lol, that's confusing patterns with reality, but nice try ;)

No it isn't. Reality is information by definition. It would be foolhardy to think that your reality is "true" even if it is consistent to you.

Reality to you - assuming this is all real - are a series of electrical signals feed into a neural network that is your brain. Even if it is consistent - it is nothing more than information.

Re: Marc Andreessen “tried really hard not to invent anything new”

#50

Post by confluence »

crusso wrote: post #38
confluence wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix. > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. > if you can see where something could be g…

Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix. No one disagrees that all inventions build upon older ideas and inventions. Your attempt to redefine what the word…

See here for another competitor that could've taken out YouTube: http://www.quora.com/Vimeo/Why-did-YouTube-succeed-where-Vim...

Everything is a remix. And there is always someone ready to take your place.

Post reply on HN