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

How the U.S. became a science superpower

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 529 posts

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#41

Post by ecshafer »

There are a couple fundamental flaws here:

One is that the number one Science and Engineering powerhouse prior to WWII was Germany, not Britain.

Two this totally neglects that the US received the lion's share of Scientists and Mathematicians from countries like Germany, Hungary, Poland etc with the encroachment of the Soviets and persecution of the Jewish people.

While the down up approach of the US and heavy funding probably helped a lot. Bringing in the Von Neumanns and Erdos of the world couldn't have hurt.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#42

Post by insane_dreamer »

fifilura wrote: post #13
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.

Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.

Sarcasm detector has to be pretty high to catch this one ;)

But you've touched on the problem: any attempt to reform is immediately cast as "communism" (also without really understanding communism and equating it with soviet authoritarianism, but that's another topic).

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#43

Post by pjc50 »

arunabha wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The GP post explicitly mentioned the growth of Chinese research capability that they directly saw. It's no secret that China has explicitly and deliberately invested in ramping up R&D. Also, requiring absolute proof in a system as vast and complex as R&D at the scale of the US leads to complete paralysis. It's a bit like cutting off your fingers because you want to lose weight.

It would be interesting to see some discussion of how the Chinese research funding system actually works.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#44

Post by glial »

apercu wrote: post #18
fifilura wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.

Really? Is that your honest take? It's either late stage unfettered capitalism, regulatory capture and oligarchy OR communism? Edit: I forgot theocracy.

I think the comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#45

Post by insane_dreamer »

anon291 wrote: post #5
xhkkffbf wrote: post #4

How? Money. There is one problem with the current US system: it overproduces talent. When the US system was growing rapidly, the people could build a long-term career in the US. But nothing can grow forever at an exponential pace. The US continues to pour plenty of money into STEM, but it can't keep up with the pace of grad student production. People are making smart, individual decisions to head overseas for work. P…

> People are making smart, individual decisions to head overseas for work. Places like China are rewarding them. Wait what? I know that many Chinese students are staying in China, but this is the first I've heard of a substantial demographic immigrating to China to work there, esp from the US. Do you have data?

It's not widespread. But China has made an effort to offer obscene amounts of money to attract smart professors and researchers to switch to Chinese universities as they've tried to build up their top-tier beyond Beida and Tsinghua.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#46

Post by anon7000 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #40
cs702 wrote: post #7

Worth reading in its entirety. The following four paragraphs, about post-WWII funding of science in Britain versus the US, are spot-on, in my view: > Britain’s focused, centralized model using government research labs was created in a struggle for short-term survival. They achieved brilliant breakthroughs but lacked the scale, integration and capital needed to dominate in the post-war world. > The U.S. built a decent…

We have to dispense with the silliness of comparing the US with countries a tenth its size. If you want to compare Britain to the US, pick a state of comparable size and do so. Otherwise you’re comparing apples to much larger apples.

Why? Britain was considered a larger power in the world until around WWII.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#47

Post by croes »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #28
Arubis wrote: post #9

Being the sole western industrialized nation that hadn't just had most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble can't have hurt.

The US provided billions in aid and resources under the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and especially Japan after the war. And provided billions again to Korea after the Korean War. Japan and South Korea obviously made the most of it with their massive science and technology industries in the post-war era.

The Marshall plan’s effectiveness is more of a myth

https://miwi-institut.de/archives/2898

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#48

Post by fallingknife »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #4

How? Money. There is one problem with the current US system: it overproduces talent. When the US system was growing rapidly, the people could build a long-term career in the US. But nothing can grow forever at an exponential pace. The US continues to pour plenty of money into STEM, but it can't keep up with the pace of grad student production. People are making smart, individual decisions to head overseas for work. P…

It overproduces credentialed morons. Giving someone a degree doesn't confer talent. And when you insist on an ever increasing percentage of the population attend college, the result is exactly as you would expect.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#49

Post by bee_rider »

apercu wrote: post #17
Arubis wrote: post #9

Being the sole western industrialized nation that hadn't just had most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble can't have hurt.

Absolutely, but what did that give the United States, a 10-year advantage? Last time I checked, WWII ended 80 years ago.

It kicked off a feedback loop. The best scientists and engineers wanted to work on the projects that were 10 years ahead. As a result US companies were at the forefront of new technology and developments… attracting the next generation of the best scientists and engineers.

This was quite robust until screwed it up for ideological reasons (fortunately, I guess, I can say this in a non-partisan manner because everybody thinks the other side blew it. My side is correct, though, of course).

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#50

Post by fifilura »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #42
fifilura wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.

Sarcasm detector has to be pretty high to catch this one ;) But you've touched on the problem: any attempt to reform is immediately cast as "communism" (also without really understanding communism and equating it with soviet authoritarianism, but that's another topic).

Yeah, cultural difference.

Coming from Europe I think the sarcasm was pretty obvious. More like "duh".

Post reply on HN