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

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#41

Post by dexwiz »

Larrikin wrote: post #28
aeonik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's short term thinking. You can't stop innovation across the planet, you will lose control over time as adversaries continue to innovate and subsume antiquated control structures.

All the people in charge currently are banking on being rich, enjoying society as they have made it, and then dead before it personally affects them.

I dunno about the last part. Rich people under 60 seem to be under the impression they might live forever, either biologically or digitally. Within our lifetime we see people trying to make their digital twin their legal heir.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#42

Post by holden_nelson »

zkmon wrote: post #25

>> Scientists are driven by curiosity Ok, then why do they get affected by funding? The truth is, today there is not a scientist, artist, researcher or writer who is not driven by funding. The era for curiosity-driven science is was over a long time ago. The direction of research or science is all driven by funding.

if scientists are so curious, why do they have to eat??? checkmate atheists

Less snarky: getting funding and making a living in academia, which is the most accessible way to be a scientist, has been cutthroat since long before this administration. If it were more accessible, or if staying alive weren't so damn expensive, I think we'd see more curiosity-driven science being performed.

Also, I don't believe one negates the other. As an engineer, my work satisfies my curiosity / desire to build, and I would do it for $50k, but I'm not gonna take a pay cut to prove how curious I am.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#43

Post by bluecalm »

ortusdux wrote: post #18
aeonik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's short term thinking. You can't stop innovation across the planet, you will lose control over time as adversaries continue to innovate and subsume antiquated control structures.

Everything that is happening in the US screams short term thinking. It feels like the scramble after a leveraged buyout.

Currently the biggest US companies are throwing hundreds of billions into an uncertain bet that may pay off in a decade or so while everyone around is screaming "bubble" at them.

It looks like long term risky bet on new technology to me - exactly what you want those rich capitalist do.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#44

Post by galoisscobi »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #36
galoisscobi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they don’t teach critical thinking?

We have all met college graduates.

I don’t understand, can you elaborate? I’m trying to understand your perspective. New college grads I generally meet and work with are bright, hard working, curious and have a deep desire to learn.

I don’t think we’re having the same experiences so I want to know more about yours.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#45

Post by oblio »

dkyc wrote: post #29
terminalshort wrote: post #3

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

It's not even clear that the premise is true. There's lots of 'research' done in the big tech companies. The biggest reason why companies don't seek to emulate "Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE", is probably that it reads like a list of textbox examples of "companies that failed to execute on their research findings", so clearly there was something wrong with this approach.

Xerox and Kodak, at least, stumbled into the future and then refused it.

The same thing will happen to Google & co.

And DuPont is very much alive doing DuPont things.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#46

Post by soulofmischief »

ultrablack wrote: post #27

[flagged]

You must have missed out on the critical thinking courses, or you'd see the importance of teaching critical race theory. Not everyone is so privileged as you as to not need the benefit of a society educated on racial history.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#47

Post by Eridrus »

terminalshort wrote: post #3

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

Yeah, it's nonsense.

I think the core problem is that innovators typically only capture low single digit percent of the value they generate for society.

Bell Labs existed in an anomalous environment where their monopoly allowed them to capture more of the value of R&D, so they invested more into it.

This is the typical argument for public subsidy of R&D across both public and private settings because this low capture rate means that it is underprovisioned for society's benefit.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#48

Post by twobitshifter »

terminalshort wrote: post #3

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are.

Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter. Most CEOs are not going to take such a strong position when they, the stockholders, and every other executive can be guaranteed a financial reward through a buyback.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#49

Post by anon84873628 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #34

Academia has become a racket that is actively hostile to technological progress. I want them to get exactly 0 of my tax money for anything.

I understand why academia might be a racket. But why do you think they are actively hostile to technological progress? Are we including all the premier institutions in that claim?

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#50

Post by LogicFailsMe »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #34

Academia has become a racket that is actively hostile to technological progress. I want them to get exactly 0 of my tax money for anything.

Tenured academia, sure, burn it to the ground, no survivors, mostly a temple of mean girls and enablers of those mean girls. Adjunct and other non-tenure track professors, however, not so much. They do the real work along with the postdocs and grad students. And they get the least recognition. And oh the bellyaching when they leave academia with no hope of a tenured position and 10x their salary by pivoting to industry.
Post reply on HN