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

"Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"

peternixey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

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

#41

Post by alexjeffrey »

James_Duval wrote: post #11
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…

I understood the article as less saying "People are only using personal computing devices for trivialities!", more saying "Entrepreneurs are building businesses with little to no real positive impact on the world".

Obviously the PC is revolutionary given that people can now do things that were impossible/difficult before, like meeting people from disparate communities (see: HN), freely communicating with distant family/friends, becoming citizen journalists through blogging, finding their place in hard-to-find or sparsely-located communities, so on.

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

#42

Post by theorique »

James_Duval wrote: post #11
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…

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

Well, you can. Cheap personal computers unleashed an amazing amount of creativity in all areas of human endeavor

and

they also enabled that power and creativity to be used for trivial, disposable things, as well as scams and harmful things.

Human life went online, with both the good and the bad.

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

#43

Post by napoleoncomplex »

I don't think the people who work on these "useless" apps are to blame, rather it's the system in which they are brought up in and in case of start-ups, are taught entrepreneurship in. Paul Graham himself says he advises every start-up to "work on something for which they are the initial market"[0], so every YC cycle you get numerous companies which solve the problems of young San Francisco residents ([1] for comic relief), who help you save 30 minutes of your week you can then reinvest into working more on problems which aren't really problems while the world crumbles around you, but you don't really care about that because your Uber driver doesn't drive through those neighbourhoods.

Meanwhile, your doctor in the hospital is stuck using some 1980's software, which drains the very life-force out of him by the amount of pain it inflicts with every use, but you'll never need a doctor anyway, not with this healthy-eating/exercising app, plus it's too hard to work on that with the regulations and all, and the carpeting in your apartment is moldy.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6106528

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guf0kNV7D1w

ps. On an honest note, I've been working both on apps of the "useless" type, and spend most of my time on working on "useful" medical apps, and fuck if it's not easy to see why no one thinks these areas "sexy", so bogged down in regulation and old entrenched players. But I still think, at least in the case of these super incubators, who have the connections, who have the access to the financing, the focus should be on something more than what it is right now.

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

#44

Post by TimSAstro »

Just to throw another point into the discussion - to some extent, brain power is fungible. I say this speaking as someone who has a clear and ongoing choice between academia and industry. However, currently, academia is a world of hurt for most post-docs (several articles on the topic have passed HN, they're out there if you're interested). So, maybe the reason people aren't curing cancer is because curing cancer doesn't pay even half as well as selling ads, and it comes with a whole lot of other issues (short term contracts, high pressure, long hours, etc). I really believe that if there was a higher financial incentive / more funding support for science, we could keep more of the brightest, and things would progress faster. But in a recession, we get austerity measures, and half the kids move into strategy consulting / finance. Anyway, that's another conversation.

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

#45

Post by DougWebb »

ig1 wrote: post #18
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 transaction…

I've never understood the claim that "market makers" are providing a valuable service in the stock market by providing liquidity and reducing spreads. If this is a necessary service, why aren't there market makers in every market?

My local grocery wants to sell bananas for $1.50 a pound, but I only want to pay $1.00. Why isn't there a market maker buying and selling these bananas thousands of times per second to reduce the spread between me and my grocer so we can meet in the middle?

oh right, it's because the market takes care of that for us. If others are happy paying $1.50 the grocer will stay at that price and I'll have to accept it or go without my bananas. If most buyers agree with me the grocer will have to lower their price if they want to sell the bananas. No market maker is needed.

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

#46

Post by james-skemp »

300bps wrote: post #37

Had to break out my Android tablet to read. Linked site is the first one I've come across that was totally unreadable on Windows Phone 8.

Huh. My first gen Nexus 7 suffered from half the content being cut off. Having read the comments here, though, I won't be reading the article on another device.

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

#47

Post by notacoward »

koralatov wrote: post #35
ig1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transaction…

Just because you don't understand the value something provides, it doesn't mean that it doesn't provide it. I don't think the argument is that these optimisations don't bring value; it's that they don't bring as much value to society as an effective cancer treatment, or a new technology that cheaply and cleanly purifies water, or [insert other breakthrough here].

I think it's more about the ratio of value created vs. value extracted. Sure, more efficient markets create some benefits for the rest of us, but those benefits are the crumbs under the market makers' tables. So we get slightly better smart phones, huh? Whoop de do. That's a benefit very close to zero. If I had to choose between a new smart phone and one scoop of good ice cream, even for an equal price, I'd go for the ice cream. On the flip side, for that "amazing increase in market efficiency" quite a few financiers end up making nine or even ten figures. Which part of that really motivates them? Which part has a greater effect on society (a negative one BTW) ten years from now?

People who dismiss the value of complex derivatives and HFT and other Wall Street shenanigans don't necessarily lack understanding, and it's obnoxious to say so. They just add perspective to that understanding. People who obsess over prices and ignore true value are sociopaths and should be dealt with as such.

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

#48

Post by auggierose »

jaxytee wrote: post #19
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.

That's a pretty naive world view for many reasons.

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

#50

Post by mseebach »

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…

I don't think it's sound to conclude that the evolution of your pitch from lofty intentions to quantifiable benefits is the fault of other people being selfish.

People with good intentions ("attacking loneliness in cities and densely populated areas, and inspiring people to pursue their interests") are a dime a dozen, people who can actually deliver on their intentions are quite rarer.

The numbers and the benefits to the user are relevant, because if the numbers are 0 and the benefits are absent, you're not actually any closer to solving the problems you want to solve.

Post reply on HN