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

131–140 of 164 posts

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

#131

Post by jessaustin »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #120
zeteo wrote: post #115

It's a systemic problem. We can be fairly certain of it because the system used to work differently. Past decades saw major national projects that were successfully undertaken e.g. the Tennessee Valley Authority in the '30s, the WW2 effort, the interstate system in the '50s, Apollo in the '60s. This all came to a halt in the '70s (just as the baby boomers were starting to be in charge - coincidence?). In the '80s, "g…

I like where you're coming from, but I'm not sure our foundation system is as altruistic or effective as we're led to believe. Peter Buffett wrote a great op-ed the other day on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-ind...

I'd managed to miss that the first time around; I wish I could thank you for prompting me to read it.

Buffett offers some vague criticisms, intended I assume to mean something to his rivals in the trust-fund-gradual-diminution game. They mean little to someone outside that community. They seem especially unfair in response to a mention of Bill Gates. Gates is ending diseases. How is that kicking the can? How is that turning the world into "one vast market"?

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

#133

Post by auggierose »

auggierose wrote: post #48
jaxytee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One reason: The thing about changing the world is, most people (including VCs) think it is possible only after it is done. So in their view, changing the world does not make them any money, because they don't believe they will change the world in the first place.

And now: fuck off, downvoter Mafia.

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

#134

Post by kingraoul3 »

zeteo wrote: post #115

It's a systemic problem. We can be fairly certain of it because the system used to work differently. Past decades saw major national projects that were successfully undertaken e.g. the Tennessee Valley Authority in the '30s, the WW2 effort, the interstate system in the '50s, Apollo in the '60s. This all came to a halt in the '70s (just as the baby boomers were starting to be in charge - coincidence?). In the '80s, "g…

Here is a link worth reading if you're considering the social, political and economic changes of the last 40 years (it is written by Leon Trotsky):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/04/capdevel.htm

Essentially, increasing competition drives down profit margins in existing market sectors. Companies respond by increasing automation so that they can generate arbitrage profits against the "average" price dictated by the cost of the generation of a unit of the good by their competitors. The other companies catch up, however, and this process itself is deleterious since profit is generated by accumulating the surplus value of the labor embodied in a unit of the commodity. As this process reaches it's nadir, the economic character of society is marked by speculation, increasing international tension, and market crashes. Once the fictitious capital that has outstripped the value in the real economy is destroyed, growth can begin anew. Based on Nikolai Kondratiev research, these growth and contraction cycles operate on approximately 30 to 40 year cycles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

What's particularly fascinating (detailed in Trotsky's article) is how the growth / contraction cycles operate on human culture and thought. Thus 60 years ago, the United States could be a signatory to a Declaration on Universal Human Rights and today find itself denying that it's own citizens have a right to due process.

Anyways, I could go on, but I'd be rambling :)

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #120
zeteo wrote: post #115

It's a systemic problem. We can be fairly certain of it because the system used to work differently. Past decades saw major national projects that were successfully undertaken e.g. the Tennessee Valley Authority in the '30s, the WW2 effort, the interstate system in the '50s, Apollo in the '60s. This all came to a halt in the '70s (just as the baby boomers were starting to be in charge - coincidence?). In the '80s, "g…

I like where you're coming from, but I'm not sure our foundation system is as altruistic or effective as we're led to believe. Peter Buffett wrote a great op-ed the other day on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-ind...

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by teilo »

Then there is this: It is things like Angry Birds that provide the economic engine which funds cancer research.

If there were no Angry Birds, or countless other "does it matter" products, the amount of money that would be available for charities or research of all kinds would be drastically reduced.

These "does it matter" products create wealth that did not previously exist. Yes, create wealth. They don't steal from research. They create economic value that did not exist before.

There is nothing systematically broken here. However, the system absolutely does break when some authoritarian power decides that they shall decide which products shall be produced, and how any existing wealth shall be apportioned. It has NEVER worked in the history of humanity. Call it unjust if you wish, but one's sense of social justice does not change the way economies function. An economy is based on human action. Humans act on fundamental needs. Sometimes they act irrationally. Nevertheless, on a scale, they act in ways that are predictable and consistent. The principles of human action cannot be changed. They can only be observed and exploited. Any economic system that is predicated upon changing human action will fail.

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

#137

Post by sergiosgc »

Ensorceled wrote: post #93
jballanc wrote: post #85

I think the author is close, but doesn't quite capture the entire reasoning behind "cure cancer" versus "disrupt dry-cleaning" or "new car manufacturer". The disparity between these things is not just a matter of probability of success, but also of the timeline over which success is realized. When I was just over a year-and-a-half into my Ph.D. training, I had something of an epiphany. At the time, I was designing an…

This is actually the best reason for government funding of basic and applied research. Society has to take the long view since individuals and corporations can not. This is why it is scary that politics has degenerated to the point where even 4 year plans are becoming difficult.

While capitalism is quite successful, it has shortcomings. These should be addressed by the society as a whole, and the State is THE organization that is participated in by the whole society. Major categories of capitalism faults:

- It does not guard against negative externalities: pollution, long term degrading employee health and safety, value extraction with no value creation (think stealing and other crimes). Here, laws and police/justice are needed to guarantee an even playing field.

- It does not guard against value capture by monopoly, be it natural or artificial monopoly. Here, state companies and anti-monopoly regulation are needed.

- It does not invest in positive externalities (think fundamental investigation in generic areas like math). Here, government funding of investigation is a good target.

- It does not guarantee its own persistence, when attacked by a different ideology (think national security). This is what justifies having the military.

Having the State intervene in the market to reduce these shortcomings should never be viewed as anti-capitalist, much to the contrary: it is essential to preserve capitalism.

For a very vivid example: large banks are capturing an exceedingly large added value from the market, and are creating negative externalities through risky behaviour. We have done nothing to contain this problem. Worse, we are generally failing to take the long view in planning government intervention in the areas government must operate, and are having the government act in areas where it shouldn't.

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

#138

Post by Ensorceled »

sergiosgc wrote: post #137
Ensorceled wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the best reason for government funding of basic and applied research. Society has to take the long view since individuals and corporations can not. This is why it is scary that politics has degenerated to the point where even 4 year plans are becoming difficult.

While capitalism is quite successful, it has shortcomings. These should be addressed by the society as a whole, and the State is THE organization that is participated in by the whole society. Major categories of capitalism faults: - It does not guard against negative externalities: pollution, long term degrading employee health and safety, value extraction with no value creation (think stealing and other crimes). Her…

All of these are the result of unregulated and unrestrained capitalism. I'm confused that the majority has somehow been convinced that it is a good thing that corporations are socipathic entities that will parasitically consume its host (society) if allowed.

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

#139

Post by gte910h »

exratione wrote: post #122
rayiner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total cost of the 2012 election was $6.3 billion, about half of which was the Presidential election, so over a period of 4 years you're looking at roughly 2.4 billion per year. That would do jack shit for curing aging or even an important disease. The NIH spends $30 billion per year on those things. We do the beer and circuses because they're cheaper than large-scale human advancements. The Manhattan project was…

The cost of implementing SENS, a detailed research plan to demonstrate rejuvenation in old mice, is between $1 to $2 billion over 20 years. Of the NIH budget, much less than 1% goes towards ways to intervene in aging I'm sorry to say. The NIA yearly budget is ~$1 billion, and of that very little has anything to do with actually altering the course of aging.

SENS is really fishy. Computer people I know love the idea. Biological research people I know think the guy is talking out his ass and hand waving most of it.

I do think aging based research is the future, I just worry that SENS is a boondoggle that could put us off aging research permanently.

Organ printing is getting sizable investment right now. That will do a good job at a lot of problems.

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

#140

Post by DougWebb »

maxerickson wrote: post #79
DougWebb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 redu…

Your grocer is a market maker! To the point that the word market is often used for small stores. If you had to buy bananas off a truck when it happened to be in town, you'd get a lot less bananas and you'd pay more for them.

I don't think that's true. It's certainly more convenient for me to go the grocer and know that, usually, they'll have bananas for sale. However, during the summer in my town there is a farmers market every week, where I actually can go and buy produce off the back of a truck. The prices are often cheaper and the products are often better. (Sometimes the prices are higher, but that's because the products are better: organic, varieties that don't ship well, etc.)

I can take this one step further, and actually go to many of the farms around here to buy produce right off the plants, by picking it myself. Even less convenient, but it makes for a nice weekend outing, and the prices are even cheaper.

Note that in both cases the prices drop for me and stay the same for the farmer by cutting out middle-men: the shippers, the grocer. By your terms, those are the market makers, and while they make produce commerce more convenient they're certainly not reducing costs for anyone. They're taking profits out of the parties on the two ends of the transaction.

I'll grant you that, in my example, the middle-men provide an essential service by giving me access to produce that is not produced locally, and by making that access more convenient. Neither of those apply to the financial markets though: as purely information-driven markets, they're accessible 24/7 from anyplace in the world. So again, what value are the market makers actually providing to the buyers and sellers of financial products?

Post reply on HN