"Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#11

Post by James_Duval » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:16 AM UTC

rational_indian wrote: post #4

False dichotomy much?

Very much agreed.

In addition...

Brain power is not a fungible resource. You cannot divert excess brain power to any task you choose. It's a highly specific, highly targeted resource which seems to me to be horribly capricious and (ironically?) irrational in its choice of target.

In other words, the answer for any app entrepreneur when asked "Why didn't you work on a cure for cancer?" is simply "Well, I didn't think of that. I thought of an app."

I like the apparent contradiction in the Telegraph article too:

"Hackers/entrepreneurs used to invent revolutionary things like the PC!"

"People are only using personal computing devices for trivialities!"

Either personal computing was a great idea or it's a platform for the trivial and banal, you can't have it both ways.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#12

Post by James_Duval » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:17 AM UTC

praptak wrote: post #8

rational_indian wrote: post #4

False dichotomy much?

FYI, that is the point of the article.

The point of this article, but not the point of the Telegraph article the quote is from.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#13

Post by znowi » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:18 AM UTC

I'm curious how many of HN readers have never played Angry Birds. Could it be more than half? Or less than 1%?

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#14

Post by louwrentius » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:20 AM UTC

I think that the return on investment on curing cancer does not impact the sale of Angry Birds much. At least not sufficiently to justify the investment. Sorry for being cynical.

On another note, look at Bill Gates, made a fortune with software, now spending it on charity. Maybe that's a route that is more reasonable.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#15

Post by rorrr2 » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:20 AM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #9

I mentioned on Twitter how my earlier pitches for what I'm working on focused a lot more on the reasons I'm doing it... attacking loneliness in cities and densely populated areas, and inspiring people to pursue their interests. As the pitches to users and investors evolved, I realised I'd moved a long way from this and now mention just the numbers, just the personal benefits to the user. No-one seems to care so much…

It's not about selfishness, it's just that most easy problems got solved, and we're left with really really hard ones.

Cancer is so mind-boggingly complex that one person cannot even begin to look at ways to solve it on his own.

Think about web developers, for example. We can either develop some SaaS website in 6 months that will bring us something like $500/month, or we can attack the cancer problem for 30 years and pretty much guaranteed to get nowhere.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#16

Post by morganwilde » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:20 AM UTC

nkuttler wrote: post #2

I have a feeling it's a good thing that game developers don't work on curing cancer. I know this isn't what the article is about, but the headline makes it sound so.

Well then you share the same feelings with the author of this article.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#17

Post by binarymax » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:22 AM UTC

I've found that those who try to impose their ideals on someone else, are usually (but not always) trying to cover up and deflect their own self-doubt and insecurities.

Do what you love, and to heck with whatever anyone else thinks. I used to work on predicting baseball. And before that, even worse, performance management software!

Now I am lucky enough to work on "socially responsible" software, and enjoy it. But I don't delude myself into thinking I am curing cancer, and I don't think I ever could. But damn anyone else who thinks I should spend my time doing something to meet their own standards.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#18

Post by ig1 » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:24 AM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #5

I just wish that societally we would put more of a financial emphasis on things that deliver the most social utility. That would solve the gradient problem, and still deliver efficiency since people would have different competitive advantage. I think games are something of a poor example, since they clearly do bring happiness to people at least, but the financial industry seems to spend inordinate amounts of energy a…

Those milliseconds being shaved off forex trading are the reason that commercial and retail spreads are much tighter than they were a decade ago.

When currencies were priced every second market makers had to set a spread that would protect them from market variance within that one-second period, as that time period shrunk the amount of risk dropped as did the spreads.

Think about the thousands of currency transactions that had to happen for your smartphone to exist. It makes a huge difference to international trade when you can pay a lower premium to exchange currencies.

Just because you don't understand the value something provides, it doesn't mean that it doesn't provide it.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#19

Post by jaxytee » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:29 AM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #9

I mentioned on Twitter how my earlier pitches for what I'm working on focused a lot more on the reasons I'm doing it... attacking loneliness in cities and densely populated areas, and inspiring people to pursue their interests. As the pitches to users and investors evolved, I realised I'd moved a long way from this and now mention just the numbers, just the personal benefits to the user. No-one seems to care so much…

Venture Capitalist primary concern is making money. Sure they'll go for changing the world too, if it means they make more money.

Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

#20

Post by patio11 » Tue, Jul 30, 2013, 11:29 AM UTC

rorrr2 wrote: post #15

buro9 wrote: post #9

I mentioned on Twitter how my earlier pitches for what I'm working on focused a lot more on the reasons I'm doing it... attacking loneliness in cities and densely populated areas, and inspiring people to pursue their interests. As the pitches to users and investors evolved, I realised I'd moved a long way from this and now mention just the numbers, just the personal benefits to the user. No-one seems to care so much…

It's not about selfishness, it's just that most easy problems got solved, and we're left with really really hard ones. Cancer is so mind-boggingly complex that one person cannot even begin to look at ways to solve it on his own. Think about web developers, for example. We can either develop some SaaS website in 6 months that will bring us something like $500/month, or we can attack the cancer problem for 30 years and…

Or, just throwing this out there as an option, you could solve any problem for a physician's practice -- like, say, patients not complying with their treatment regimen by failing to make scheduled check ups. You might even be able to do that with a SaaS app.

Granted, it won't cure cancer, but you'll save more lives at the margin than doing Zynga ads. (And, n.b., healthcare clients often have more than $500 available to spend.)