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

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#141

Post by JohnMakin »

mike_hearn wrote: post #125
JohnMakin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken 2 required critical thinking courses from 2 different state schools. They were in the philosophy department. Why do you think they don't teach it? In stanford, for instance, they require taking 2 courses on formal reasoning as a prerequisite for a degree, which invariably includes critical thinking.

I've never heard of anyone being required to take a philosophy course but some universities surely do it. I was curious about the Stanford claim. This is the Ways system, right? Their website says you need to take at least one course in formal reasoning: https://ways.stanford.edu/about/ways-categories/formal-reaso... They list a few examples like market design or programming. I thought, OK, formal reasoning maybe, bu…

There was a critical thinking requirement that multiple courses fulfilled. One was a critical thinking english class that involved a lot of writing. I didn't want to write, so I chose the philosophy course (which still involved writing).

Here is a state school that has a foundation requirement in critical thinking with several courses:

https://www.csulb.edu/student-records/ge-approved-courses-ca...

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#142

Post by skeeter2020 »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #73
twobitshifter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

> Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. To be fair share owners also like the stock price to go higher, they also like dividends (and higher dividends would tend to drive the stock price higher too), but an X% increase in share price caused by buybacks is favoured over an X% dividend because it isn’t immediately taxed.

with everything at record highs we'll see if we continue to prefer inflated share price over reinvestment in the business or increased dividends.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#143

Post by cocoto »

fkyoureadthedoc wrote: post #108
cjbgkagh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in corporate labs they really were great and it's a shame they're disappearing. It's not only share buybacks, I would include offshoring, DEI, and a consolidation of management power as major factors in the destruction these labs. The pipeline has been so bad for so long now that it would take a miracle to get things started again. The last org I worked at offshored the most promising work to China. Due…

I'm not really seeing how the blacks and women ruined corporate research, can you expand on that more? Are you saying they were all retarded and without enough white, Asian, and Indian men nothing could be accomplished?

If for instance higher ups from all companies require you to hire only whites with straight blond hair, a certain weight/size and with green eyes, you will quickly need to hire the bottom of the barrel of this group to expand your teams.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#144

Post by terminalshort »

twobitshifter wrote: post #48
terminalshort wrote: post #3

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

If companies want to reward executives directly they can cut out shareholders entirely and pay salaries and bonuses. If companies want to reward shareholders (including executives) they can pay dividends (which Apple did do under Jobs). Nothing about the priorities of companies changed with share buybacks.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#146

Post by some_guy_nobel »

zkmon wrote: post #25

>> Scientists are driven by curiosity Ok, then why do they get affected by funding? The truth is, today there is not a scientist, artist, researcher or writer who is not driven by funding. The era for curiosity-driven science is was over a long time ago. The direction of research or science is all driven by funding.

Here we have someone who clearly practices little real science, as evident by the ease with which they speak absolute statements that apply extremely broadly.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#147

Post by terminalshort »

UncleMeat wrote: post #30
terminalshort wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would companies not want to maximize their value before share buybacks?

Loads of reasons. The shareholder theory of corporate governance is actually not very old.

And what other theory is there? The only two I know of are the shareholder theory and the vague "Capitalism bad. Shareholder bad." theory, which isn't actually a theory, but a complaint.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#148

Post by bena »

hyperpape wrote: post #127
Uehreka wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately CEOs have to do buybacks at every opportunity, because otherwise shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value. > Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter. (Head spins) wait what?! No! You’re not supposed to do that!…

> shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value That's quite a bold claim. Do you have an example in which a company/CEO/board was sued specifically for not doing enough buybacks?

A lot of this comes back to Dodge v Ford. The Dodge brothers sued the Ford Motor Company because Ford wanted to cut prices and invest in the company while removing dividends to shareholders. The Dodges disagreed with this and sued. The courts found in favor of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#149

Post by skeeter2020 »

hyperpape wrote: post #127
Uehreka wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately CEOs have to do buybacks at every opportunity, because otherwise shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value. > Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter. (Head spins) wait what?! No! You’re not supposed to do that!…

> shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value That's quite a bold claim. Do you have an example in which a company/CEO/board was sued specifically for not doing enough buybacks?

I don't think it's typically this explicit or direct, but it can definitely flow more like 1. company is not doing buybacks, 2. performance is judged against comparables in the short (quarterly) term using metrics that prioritize the affects of buybacks, 3. major stakeholders (big stock holders, institutions, funds, etc) put pressure on the board, 4. CEO pushes back and is dismissed for performance or "not hitting targets". Functionally a lot of players in power positions prefer buy backs, optics are better for a surging stock vs. modest increase in dividends, and it favours short-term metrics.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#150

Post by mike_hearn »

JohnMakin wrote: post #141
mike_hearn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of anyone being required to take a philosophy course but some universities surely do it. I was curious about the Stanford claim. This is the Ways system, right? Their website says you need to take at least one course in formal reasoning: https://ways.stanford.edu/about/ways-categories/formal-reaso... They list a few examples like market design or programming. I thought, OK, formal reasoning maybe, bu…

There was a critical thinking requirement that multiple courses fulfilled. One was a critical thinking english class that involved a lot of writing. I didn't want to write, so I chose the philosophy course (which still involved writing). Here is a state school that has a foundation requirement in critical thinking with several courses: https://www.csulb.edu/student-records/ge-approved-courses-ca...

Yes, but, thinking critically about this, why would learning how to hand-weave on a loom teach critical thinking? I get that you weren't doing these courses at Stanford but it's this kind of thing that makes people skeptical when universities make grandiloquent claims. Stanford is supposed to be the gold standard, so when it makes it appear that they teach critical thinking but actually don't (or it's at least very easy to make choices that won't do so) of course the claim is devalued.

If universities really cared about this aspect of their reputation they'd defend it by firing professors who were found to not be thinking critically e.g. by praising or putting their names on papers that are clearly fraudulent. It doesn't happen.

Post reply on HN