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

It’s Time to Build

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s Time to Build

#141

Post by fxtentacle »

The article chalks it up to a lack of desire, but that seems completely wrong to me.

The sad truth is that building yet another addictive and attention-grabbing way to push ads into people's faces pays the bills. Doing the right thing does not, or at least not in America.

As a German, it took me a while to figure out how business in the US works, but basically everyone only treats things listed next to a monetary amount in the balance sheet as real. As a result, a concept like "for the good of society" does not exist for most CEOs.

There is plenty of well-educated and well-meaning young people happy to build a better future. They certainly had the desire to do that when they started working.

The real question is how to make it financially viable for them to do the building.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#142

Post by neilparikh »

bluedino wrote: post #111
aazaa wrote: post #99

> ... The things we build in huge quantities, like computers and TVs, drop rapidly in price. The things we don’t, like housing, schools, and hospitals, skyrocket in price. What’s the American dream? The opportunity to have a home of your own, and a family you can provide for. We need to break the rapidly escalating price curves for housing, education, and healthcare, to make sure that every American can realize the d…

We don't build TV's and computers. Other countries do. We do build hospitals/housing/schools. Maybe if we imported slave labor like say, Dubai, it'd be cheaper to build things.

Are you claiming that most of the cost in building housing is in labour costs?

At least in places with housing shortages, like the Bay Area and NYC, it seems to me that the high costs comes from the government slowing down (or refusing to allow) new housing construction.

I think a similar problem is evident in healthcare, with certificate of need laws and AMA's restrictions on number of doctors.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#143

Post by yalogin »

I don’t think capitalism is the straight up answer. If you are rousing people to create new startups so you can fund sure, but reality is the politics in the country should change. Politicians should be less self-serving and be able to think long term about the good of the people. Companies cannot create the infrastructure or planning needed for pandemics, that should come from the government. Sure companies can make the daily lives more resilient but the initiative should come from the government.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#144

Post by tlb »

oxymoron wrote: post #70

I'm in the process of reading _Why Nation Fails_. The central thesis is that the rich and poor countries are separated by inclusive vs extractive institutions. The extractive institutions are characterised by elites that attempt to defend their own wealth and status by maintaining the status quo and resisting the creative destruction that may threaten that position. It seems to resonate a bit here, when Marc speaks o…

Getting an answer from a court (is X legal?) takes a long time: at least a few years and several hundred thousand dollars. Far too long to wait before building a business around X. Asking people to build the business first and then find out if it's legal isn't how a society of laws is supposed to work.

Fast courts would be a huge benefit to society.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#145

Post by gdubs »

Definitely feels like an inflection point. With all of the rush to return to “normal”, I’ve been thinking about a lot of the ways in which “normal” is pretty busted. And yes, many of us are fortunate to live in this point in history.

But a lot of people aren’t so fortunate, and I don’t know if those gaps have ever been quite so apparent for our generation.

Being really sick over the past month has definitely led to a lot of reflection. There’s a burning desire to make every day count in a way I’ve never felt before. Closest thing being the birth of my kids.

I’ve posted this before, but this essay reminds me of a great West Wing exchange with Chief of Staff Leo McGary:

Leo McGarry: My generation never got the future it was promised... Thirty-five years later, cars, air travel is exactly the same. We don't even have the Concorde anymore. Technology stopped.

Josh Lyman: The personal computer...?

Leo McGarry: A more efficient delivery system for gossip and pornography? Where's my jet pack, my colonies on the Moon?

Re: It’s Time to Build

#146

Post by dmurray »

mrfusion wrote: post #26
MattGaiser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s spend the next ten years building a system that can produce a vaccine in three months. The big problem is that we have to test it long term on a bunch of live human beings to make sure it doesn't deform babies or something. That is the major delay. Build whatever system you want, but a perfect vaccine ready today would still be well over 3 months from deployment due to the need for safety checks. https://www.…

How about a crisis only approval. During which time you don’t give it to babies, pregnant women, etc. It would still be enormously valuable for first responders and elderly. You make sure they have all the information about the unknown risks and let them be consenting adults. A terrible idea for normal times but maybe ok weighed against the cost of doing nothing in a crisis.

One problem with this idea is that the coronavirus just isn't that severe. If the mystery treatment has a 5% rate of severe complications, then the cure would be worse than the disease. Even 1% might be too much: consider that not everybody will contract the coronavirus, and the people most at risk from it (elderly or with comorbidities) are also likely to be at the highest risk of complications from some novel drug. A 5% risk of serious complications isn't unusually high: thalidomide was around 50% for pregnant women.

If the coronavirus death rate was comparable with the Spanish flu - around 10% instead of 1%, and severe in young healthy people - we'd be a lot more justified in rushing through untested treatments.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#147

Post by robotresearcher »

ajross wrote: post #105
nopriorarrests wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest, no snark question -- what exactly US government did in last 30 years that should warrant providing more money to it? Is there any guarantee that another trillion dollars will be used more efficiently than blowing up another Middle East country?

Aren't the last 30 years sort of the problem though? How about we check the 30 years before that: medicare, social security, the tail end of the new deal, the rapid cleanup of acid emissions which were wrecking forests all up and down the east coast... Seems like, starting in the 80's, you would have looked at this and said hey, this government knows what it's doing, we should let it do more stuff . Instead we basica…

> How about we check the 30 years before that: medicare, social security, the tail end of the new deal,

And Vietnam, depressed inner cities, social strife, crime and unemployment...

Re: It’s Time to Build

#148

Post by nerfhammer »

timhigins wrote: post #102
covidacct wrote: post #46

> I expect this essay to be the target of criticism. Here’s a modest proposal to my critics. Instead of attacking my ideas of what to build, conceive your own! What do you think we should build? There’s an excellent chance I’ll agree with you. What we need to build is the capacity to make investments in building backstops against low-prob, high-risk, collective risks. For almost all of those risks, the problem isn't…

Sure, govts. should tax the FAANGs of the world more, but having a "stake" in them means govt. interests suddenly align with corporate interests, meaning regulation for the public good gets sidelined. Net neutrality anyone?

It also potentially means the state partly owns the free speech platforms, which may have some risks.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#149

Post by nopriorarrests »

covidacct wrote: post #116
nopriorarrests wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest, no snark question -- what exactly US government did in last 30 years that should warrant providing more money to it? Is there any guarantee that another trillion dollars will be used more efficiently than blowing up another Middle East country?

Here's one teeny tiny example. They made a smart investment, to the tune of billions of dollars, in computer science. And not just for the past 30 years, but continuously for the past 100 years. That investment included a modest (6-7 figure, depending on how your count) investment in a project on digital libraries years before private capital caught on. The private investors were rewarded handsomely for their investm…

I still do not understand the logic. Let me put it straight.

1. US Government has unlimited funding, heck, it came up with 2 trillions _during last month alone_ with some financial alchemy which I don't fully understand. But clearly it's not starving.

2. US Government has kinda poor record producing tangible results during last 30 years, in terms of advancing science, housing, whatever. I mean, can CDC quickly figure out in 2020, are the pieces of cloth on my face help to fight the virus or not? Seems it's still up for discussion.

3. Private capital, during the same time frame, gave us google search and maps, smartphones, movies on demand and god knows how much other stuff.

So, based on these 3 observable points, we should "Tax the living hell out of capital"? I still not getting it.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#150

Post by MattGaiser »

whb07 wrote: post #97
MattGaiser wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an issue with the ideas. I agree with many of them. I just find it a bit absurd that one of the top 1000 people capable of putting them into action is telling other people to go do it while he spends his time investing in them. Capital is obviously helpful and crucial for building companies, but he is obviously satisfied waiting for solutions to walk in the door rather than chasing them himself.

You realize he’s one of the main players in your enjoyment of the internet as we see it today right? Then you somehow proceed to say “well why is Michael Jordan talking about how X player isn’t performing!? He should be out there playing right now”... uh what? So a player moves to becoming a coach or some support character after decades in the game and that’s your great comment?

> You realize he’s one of the main players in your enjoyment of the internet as we see it today right?

I know who he is.

> Then you somehow proceed to say “well why is Michael Jordan talking about how X player isn’t performing!? He should be out there playing right now”... uh what?

If he is on the bench and is talking about how performance is desperately needed, yes. Michael Jordan is old. He can't play as well anymore. Marc Andreessen is in the best position to be a builder in his life.

> So a player moves to becoming a coach or some support character after decades in the game and that’s your great comment?

Players generally stop playing once they for some reason can't (injury, age, etc) or begin to have other priorities and don't view the effort of playing as worth it.

I don't see a reason that he can't, so this is of lesser significance to him than the essay alone would indicate.

Post reply on HN