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

The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#211

Post by SatvikBeri »

reasonattlm wrote: post #132
pg wrote: post #87

These articles are easy to write (and upvote) but such conclusions are pretty meaningless till you have a definition of what counts as innovation. That's a very interesting question, and yet just about everyone who talks about this topic ducks it and goes instead for the easy score. Maybe we can do better here on HN. What's the right way to measure innovation? E.g. surely the 5 year old's definition (big shiny things…

1) Life expectancy. 2) 10-year moving average of the duration of subsistence living expenses that can be funded from a fixed weight of gold. Both of these are very high level measures that fold in a lot of underlying technological progress. (1) is weighted towards computation and biotech, (2) against mining and expansion into space (would have to be weighted somehow there to be useful much past the next 20 years), bu…

Why gold? Gold is a highly volatile commodity and not particularly correlated to inflation.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#212

Post by robomartin »

RougeFemme wrote: post #203
Retric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic…

Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.

GPS was a military technology. The program was not developed with the forward vision of what it is being used for today.

That is the case for a lot of military technology. So, I guess, if we derive such great benefits from war and killing people by the millions we should continue to fund these great government programs. Right?

Right.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#213

Post by emmett »

timr wrote: post #129
pg wrote: post #87

These articles are easy to write (and upvote) but such conclusions are pretty meaningless till you have a definition of what counts as innovation. That's a very interesting question, and yet just about everyone who talks about this topic ducks it and goes instead for the easy score. Maybe we can do better here on HN. What's the right way to measure innovation? E.g. surely the 5 year old's definition (big shiny things…

I think new economies is a good proxy. The computer invented an entirely new economy. So did the automobile, computer networking, television, radio, the telegraph, electricity, air travel, moving pictures, recorded audio, the light bulb, washing machine, dishwasher, etc. All of these things created not just the immediate industry, but an entire ecosystem of products and services related to the industry. You could pro…

By that standard, surely Airbnb is a "new economy". And Google certainly qualifies, given the number of firms dedicated to nothing but optimizing AdWords.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#214

Post by timr »

emmett wrote: post #213
timr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think new economies is a good proxy. The computer invented an entirely new economy. So did the automobile, computer networking, television, radio, the telegraph, electricity, air travel, moving pictures, recorded audio, the light bulb, washing machine, dishwasher, etc. All of these things created not just the immediate industry, but an entire ecosystem of products and services related to the industry. You could pro…

By that standard, surely Airbnb is a "new economy". And Google certainly qualifies, given the number of firms dedicated to nothing but optimizing AdWords.

I don't know about AirBnB. People have been renting rooms for as long as they've been traveling, and vacation rentals existed long before AirBnB existed -- but they certainly make things more efficient than the way they used to be. That said, if I'm counting "washing machines", then perhaps AirBnB should count, too (or anything that increases efficiency of a thing we already do by an order of magnitude; it's an interesting debate, and I'm not sure which side I'm on).

I agree with you on AdWords, though. That was really the first time advertising was made quantifiable on a large scale (the innovation), and it resulted in a new industry.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#215

Post by contingencies »

venus wrote: post #204
contingencies wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on the attack, I'm just sayin'. For example, Singapore is a bastion of fascist conservatism, plain and simple. The fact you even mentioned it as a potential destination shows that you are either hyper-conservative or that you haven't had much long term experience in the region. Visiting and living are two different things. I agree there are pros and cons to everywhere, but comparing a beach in Asia to a count…

You're not on the attack, you're just sayin' that I'm "either hyper-conservative or [..] haven't had much long term experience in the region". Right. I mentioned Singapore because it's a city in Asia that speaks English, thus making it substantially more accessible. It's also a clean, modern, livable city. I probably wouldn't live there but I know plenty of people who do and it's hardly a bad place, especially for a…

I am just trying to point out that your views are demonstrably obtuse and your arguments absurd, given that you are claiming to have experience in the region.

The award for least Asian city in Asia certainly goes to Singapore.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#216

Post by venus »

contingencies wrote: post #215
venus wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not on the attack, you're just sayin' that I'm "either hyper-conservative or [..] haven't had much long term experience in the region". Right. I mentioned Singapore because it's a city in Asia that speaks English, thus making it substantially more accessible. It's also a clean, modern, livable city. I probably wouldn't live there but I know plenty of people who do and it's hardly a bad place, especially for a…

I am just trying to point out that your views are demonstrably obtuse and your arguments absurd, given that you are claiming to have experience in the region. The award for least Asian city in Asia certainly goes to Singapore.

Nothing I said was obtuse or absurd.

Anyway, it's obvious you have something to prove from these responses so there's probably no point discussing it further.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#217

Post by philwelch »

bokonist wrote: post #206
philwelch wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not a citizen?

I am a U.S. citizen. But that does not mean I use the words "us" or "we" when discussing the actions of a government bureaucracy. I'm sure I have a few shares of Microsoft in some mutual fund, but that does not mean I use the word "we" when discussing the actions of Microsoft.

Instead of parsing my imprecise usage of the word "let's", can you address my actual point?

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#218

Post by contingencies »

venus wrote: post #216
contingencies wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just trying to point out that your views are demonstrably obtuse and your arguments absurd, given that you are claiming to have experience in the region. The award for least Asian city in Asia certainly goes to Singapore.

Nothing I said was obtuse or absurd. Anyway, it's obvious you have something to prove from these responses so there's probably no point discussing it further.

My interest is in not dissuading other readers from considering moves further afield to cultures significantly distinct from their own. We are an extremely lucky group and have this option, it is a shame to see people fail to consider it. I wish you the best of luck whatever your own preferences are in life.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#219

Post by bokonist »

philwelch wrote: post #217
bokonist wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a U.S. citizen. But that does not mean I use the words "us" or "we" when discussing the actions of a government bureaucracy. I'm sure I have a few shares of Microsoft in some mutual fund, but that does not mean I use the word "we" when discussing the actions of Microsoft.

Instead of parsing my imprecise usage of the word "let's", can you address my actual point?

I find that most people who use the word "we" or "us" when talking about government actions are not being imprecise. Rather they have internalized the civics class myth that ordinary citizens have a large amount of agency over government. I like to poke at this delusion when I can.

I'm not exactly sure why you think the FDIC should not micromanage the mortgage market. My guess is because the FDIC is government bureaucracy, and our government is so dysfunctional these days, that you think any attempt to manage mortgage markets would just make things more screwed up. And you are probably correct. Although I would say the cat's a little out of the bag with regards to preventing government bureaucracies from messing around with mortgage markets.... But my main point was not to make an "ought" argument, but to demonstrate to michaelchurch that if he wanted a particular "ought" outcome (lower housing prices) there are easier ways than to have the government buy 60% of all real estate. If you have even easier ways, that require even less government micromanagement, I'd be intrigued to hear them.

In any scenario in which Michael or I actually have enough power to direct the FDIC or government to carry out our madcap plans, the political situation would be so different that many current arguments against FDIC intervention would be obsolete. There might be new arguments against FDIC intervention, that would depend on the specifics of the changed political situation.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#220

Post by philwelch »

bokonist wrote: post #219
philwelch wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of parsing my imprecise usage of the word "let's", can you address my actual point?

I find that most people who use the word "we" or "us" when talking about government actions are not being imprecise. Rather they have internalized the civics class myth that ordinary citizens have a large amount of agency over government. I like to poke at this delusion when I can. I'm not exactly sure why you think the FDIC should not micromanage the mortgage market. My guess is because the FDIC is government bureau…

When I say "let's not do X", I don't mean it literally, it's just a way of saying "X is a bad idea". Let's just set aside that entire digression.

> I'm not exactly sure why you think the FDIC should not micromanage the mortgage market. My guess is because the FDIC is government bureaucracy, and our government is so dysfunctional these days, that you think any attempt to manage mortgage markets would just make things more screwed up. And you are probably correct.

Two points:

1. If you want to regulate the mortgage market, that's one way to go. But that should be a totally separate concern from FDIC and should be implemented in a separate way. Removing depositors' insurance because their bank didn't follow mortgaging regulations is a very poor way to regulate the banking industry.

2. The federal government subsidizes mortgages in many ways. Instead of legally regulating mortgages it might be sufficient for the government to just stop doing this. For instance, there are tax incentives for having a mortgage. The government also intervenes directly in the mortgage industry in the form of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When I said "there are so many better dials for the government[1] to turn than resorting to that", those are some of the things I was talking about.

[1] Note my use of the third person--are you happy with that or did "let's" derail you from reading the second sentence of my comment?

Post reply on HN