Live data from Hacker News

The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

sfgate.com

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#81
post #64
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I like his analysis, but particularly liked this interesting bit: 'Consider a 2011 survey by a British insurance company in which 11 percent of respondents claimed to have seen an incident but chose not to report it, worried that higher crime statistics for their neighborhood would significantly reduce the value of their properties. In this case, the quality of future data is intricately dependent on how much…

This is basically David Simon's journalism in a nutshell as formulated by Campbell: The more any quantitative social indicator is use for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor. Michelle Rhee's tenure is a cautionary tale that people insist to not learn anything from. Gotta juke them…

Yes, only here the "corruption pressure" is applied by the "free market", not by a bureaucracy. This vital detail pulls the rug from under those who claim that less government would decrease these distortions.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#82
For what it's worth, in my experience the people talking about big innovation, actually ARE extremely supportive of genuine, plausible efforts at producing planetary scale improvements. In our case, we're trying to solve the economical energy storage problem (lightsail.com)

These folks put their money where their mouth is, and helped out greatly when we needed advice or funding or connections.

Particular people who helped us out and are known to publicly call for and support big innovation include:

Vinod Khosla, Peter Thiel, Luke Nosek, Ken Howery, Bruce Gibney, Patrick and John Collison, Michael Vassar, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Matthew Nordan, Nathan Myhrvold, Bill Gates

---

By contrast, most of the other VC firms, and all of the banks, were much less receptive and we did not get anywhere with them.

So I think people are at least trying to act consistent with their philosophy. Generally, these folks will try to support great groups doing potentially great things, if there is good chemistry. They can't do it all, of course. There are not that many of them. But they try!

I think more of the blame should be on entrepreneurs and scientists who can and want to work in these areas but choose not to, and instead go into the hot software field of choice, or worse, undifferentiated finance. They should be encouraged to make some attempt at making the difference in the world that they want to see. It is not someone else's duty.

If you can do something important, and you have the resources to make a good attempt, you should try, because you may be in a very unique position to do so, and it's incredibly thin on the ground in many important areas.

There are incredibly few companies genuinely trying to make energy storage economical. There's only one, that I can tell, that's trying to make reusable orbit class rockets. There are very few trying to redefine personal computing. There are very few going after cures for cancer, broadly. There are very few effectively trying to make solar economical. There are very few well managed plug-in auto companies. There are very few trying to provide clean, low cost, distributed water. The list goes on.

People working on these major problems keep bumping into each other socially. It does not take long. The population of such entrepreneurs and innovators feels like that of a small high school. This scares me, because there are many, many problems to solve, and many reasons not inherent to the problem or solution that any one company or effort could fail.

There should be more efforts, more ideas, more entrepreneurs, more competitors. That would make me much happier, and feel much safer. At the moment, it feels like if the wrong few people are depressed, sick, or distracted, major world problems are just not getting solved, and the world is set back by as many days.

---

I would welcome any hard data to the contrary.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#84
post #73
post #47

If you want to make a difference, quit trying to cash out as a 25 year old millionaire. Get a PhD and do research. That's the real risk in life, that you might work your ass off for little pay, spend 30 years chasing a dream, and fail in the end. But the people who succeed change the world. Interestingly, most Nobel Prize winners donate a large percentage of their prize money to charity or research. They weren't inte…

Really? I think you shouldn't come up in here telling people that cashing out at 25 doesn't make a 'real' difference. There are people who prefer life experience, over work and research experience. There are people who rather invest in other people taking that risk, than taking the risk themselves. Everybody's different. The millionaires are the ones paying for your research work. So when someone like you spends 30 y…

I think you're talking about Brave New World by Huxley?

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#85

"But these aren't free market aberrations brought on by regulations. They're the invisible hand of capitalism itself: reaching out for quick gains while avoiding as much downside risk as possible." Oh boy. We've got political commentary trying to pose as analysis. Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation. If you look at this only in terms of money, you're…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#86
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Very strong" and "more to come"? Pray tell, what in the following lists qualify as the sort of "big innovations" we're talking about? [1] http://a16z.com/portfolio/ [2] http://firstround.com/companies/ [3] http://www.kpcb.com/companies Don't get me wrong, these lists contain a lot of great products that I'm happy exist - but big and world-changing they are not. The fact that the typical SV VC scene funds one or two…

Big innovations from those lists (which I call things that are - or are intended to be - life-changing for a reasonably large number of people): airbnb, asana, box, facebook, github, meteor, picloud, pinterest, skype, stripe, twitter, uber, yourmechanic, discourse, fundersclub, hoteltonight, mint, onekingslane, simple, square, taskrabbit, coursera, groupon, nest, spotify,

I wouldn't consider any of these "innovations." Your definition implies successful == innovative. By that standard Justin Bieber's music is innovative and modern jazz is not.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#87
These articles are easy to write (and upvote) but such conclusions are pretty meaningless till you have a definition of what counts as innovation. That's a very interesting question, and yet just about everyone who talks about this topic ducks it and goes instead for the easy score.

Maybe we can do better here on HN. What's the right way to measure innovation? E.g. surely the 5 year old's definition (big shiny things that fly through the air are innovative, and invisible software isn't) is mistaken. But what would a good measure be?

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#88

Edit: Seriously, I really want to know what people think about the question at the end. I worked with someone who works at cd2, and on a selfish note I'm just curious. I'm a "pasty scientist" paid by DARPA, in biotech. I work for someone who previously founded a brain-machine-interface company that had a small IPO (cyberkinetics). I would love nothing more than to see things I work on get turned into viable products.…

[deleted]

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#89

Silicon Valley used to be a place with cheap land where people went because the cost of living was low, and they could tinker with cool ideas whereas, in the expensive East Coast cities, they'd have to work themselves to death just to tread water. California was this place where you could come and do cool stuff and build on land the East Coast elite didn't want. It's no longer cheap to live there. Tinkering with new…

It's no longer cheap to live there. Tinkering with new ideas on some modest amount of savings and "odd jobs" or consulting is no longer possible. Expensive real estate leads to calcification and risk-aversion and cultural death. It's why urban ecosystems (including VC-istan, which is not a city per se) turn into hellholes shortly after their peak of greatness.

Many of the world's top cities are expensive as all hell, but in the American case at least it's largely because you're simply not allowed to build denser dwellings. Silicon Valley is stuck with huge towns full of two-story single-family housing in an area where demand can easily support multifamily apartment buildings :-/.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#90

Edit: Seriously, I really want to know what people think about the question at the end. I worked with someone who works at cd2, and on a selfish note I'm just curious. I'm a "pasty scientist" paid by DARPA, in biotech. I work for someone who previously founded a brain-machine-interface company that had a small IPO (cyberkinetics). I would love nothing more than to see things I work on get turned into viable products.…

Have the US government buy the output of these firms. Like how it subsidized transistors by buying Western Electric's output, while transistors were otherwise unprofitable. (http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&...)

Just look at the first letter in DARPA. Those subsidizing your research are also customers you want. (The military.)

Post reply on HN