The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by Retric » Tue, Mar 12, 2013, 11:40 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #210

Retric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic…

You are choosing to assign the entire value of the internet to government. This is folklore that is nothing less than nonsensical. If your goal is to "destroy" my argument you have to do far better than that. The ARPANET was going to go absolutely nowhere without private enterprise rescuing it from obscurity and launching it into every-day life like a rocket. Government did not PLAN the internet as we know it today.…

Both IP and TCP where invented by the us government. Just fucking looking at the protocalls makes it clear they where designed for a large global network. I could continue but you sir are an idiot, who seems incapable of accepting when there ideas are clearly wrong.

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

#222

Post by zhangtwin » Tue, Mar 12, 2013, 10:26 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #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…

PG - I recently read a great article on measuring innovation from CIO. I've linked below to share:

http://www.cio.com/article/628054/How_Do_You_Measure_Innovat...

I want to call out how they discuss innovation: Ultimately, innovation is a means to an end — a competence for generating profitable growth opportunities and improving the organization's competitiveness. A holistic measurement system needs to have three perspectives: performance, strength of the competence, and strategic application of the competence. The performance perspectives report out the "returns" or "results" of an organization's innovation program(s) while the competence perspectives report out the ability to envision and implement innovative opportunities. The strategy perspective outlines the criticality and impact of innovation in the organization's strategic direction.

Hopefully we can get some good discussion going on this topic as in my day-to-day work, we frequently discuss with large enterprise customers how they handle change management. Frequently we discuss it in the context of IPM (innovation process management) and how to create organizations that benefit from managing innovation; and more broadly speaking, what types of software or tools they need to successfully handle this change.

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

#223

Post by bokonist » Tue, Mar 12, 2013, 11:28 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #220

bokonist wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that most people who use the word "we" or "us" when talking about government actions are not being imprecise. Rather they have internalized the civics class myth that ordinary citizens have a large amount of agency over government. I like to poke at this delusion when I can. I'm not exactly sure why you think the FDIC should not micromanage the mortgage market. My guess is because the FDIC is government bureau…

When I say "let's not do X", I don't mean it literally, it's just a way of saying "X is a bad idea". Let's just set aside that entire digression. > I'm not exactly sure why you think the FDIC should not micromanage the mortgage market. My guess is because the FDIC is government bureaucracy, and our government is so dysfunctional these days, that you think any attempt to manage mortgage markets would just make things…

I agree that if you were trying to lower housing prices you would start by eliminating all the subsidies.

There is some chance that eliminating all subsidies would not meet whatever price goal is desired. Housing near employment is going to inevitably be scarce in some cities, and people will inevitably get in bidding wars. If people can take out the maximum mortgage that a high-earning, two income family can afford, then everyone will need two-high earning incomes to keep up (see the book The Two Income Trap).

If you want to regulate the mortgage market, that's one way to go. But that should be a totally separate concern from FDIC and should be implemented in a separate way. Removing depositors' insurance because their bank didn't follow mortgaging regulations is a very poor way to regulate the banking industry.

I think it is most reasonable to have the insurance company be the regulator. This is common in almost all other industries. If you are a landlord, the apartment insurance company will tell you to not allow smoking in the apartment or else it will not insure you or will jack up your rates. If I was czar, I would consolidate the bank regulating functionality which is now spread across a half dozen agencies all into the FDIC. If a bank refused to abide by FDIC regulations it would either face higher premiums or be expelled. If a bank was expelled, all customers would have an opportunity to transfer their deposits to another bank. The executives of the FDIC would be given a comp-plan designed to make them balance the need for expanding credit and the need for overall stability. For instance they could be comped based on overall premiums, but with clawbacks of the last decade of bonuses if the FDIC faces systemic failure and needs a bailout.