Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "When someone says "I am not doing it for the money" he (she) is doing it only for the money." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This is silly. Artists and creatives aren't doing it for the money. Social workers aren't doing it for the money. Teachers aren't doing it for th money ... etc. Passion => irrationality. Or different goals, like sense of purpose vs. money.
I havent seen the first social worker proclaiming to everybody that she is not in for the money.
Hard Startups
321–330 of 331 posts
Re: Hard Startups
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the climate change situation was really as dire as we're being told, we'd have nuclear coming out of our ears by now, and nothing whatsoever would be able to stop it. It doesn't have to be ultra-expensive if it's not bespoke every time you build it. The investment into fusion would also be 10x what it is today, and we'd already have a viable version of it, after a Manhattan-project style, do-or-die effort. What's…
>If the climate change situation was really as dire as we're being told, we'd have nuclear coming out of our ears by now, and nothing whatsoever would be able to stop it. It doesn't have to be ultra-expensive if it's not bespoke every time you build it. The investment into fusion would also be 10x what it is today, and we'd already have a viable version of it, after a Manhattan-project style, do-or-die effort. This a…
I'd say there are multiple adults in the room, and they sometimes fight, sometimes form alliances. They often do not care what you think is rational, your tribe's word for "good", because they are not of your tribe. Some have long time preferences but "collective best interests" to them means "civilization still stands somewhere on the planet".
Re: Hard Startups
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And people instinctively believe this even if they overtly signal that they don't. I think it's rather condescending to literally claim you know people's beliefs, even when they vehemently voice otherwise .
Yes, because I look at what people do rather than what they say.
Or, maybe, individual actions and collective actions are different things.
Re: Hard Startups
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If the climate change situation was really as dire as we're being told, we'd have nuclear coming out of our ears by now, and nothing whatsoever would be able to stop it. It doesn't have to be ultra-expensive if it's not bespoke every time you build it. The investment into fusion would also be 10x what it is today, and we'd already have a viable version of it, after a Manhattan-project style, do-or-die effort. This a…
You are assuming your lack of agency extends to people much higher than you in society, without evidence and against my experience (leaders in organizations have different views -- about their organization's purpose, for example -- than the people under them, views they only share with other leaders, or free agents, if they even ever do share them). I'd say there are multiple adults in the room, and they sometimes fi…
My comment is based on extensive professional and social interactions with other people in leadership roles. It is very frequently the case that such people, including government ministers simply don't have as much independent power of action as you think.
The original parent comment said that if things were really so bad, then something would be done with the implication that since not much is being done, things cannot be so bad. Since we are not mass-building PWRs and running five parallel crash fusion programmes, it must follow that someone has examined the evidence and decided that the problem of climate change is not so bad and therefore we are not doing those things.
The problem with this view is the assumption that there is a someone or a group of someones who sit back, review IPCC reports and then have the ability to collectively compel the political leaders of the world to act rationally. If there was such a group then their lack of action would indicate that they had made a rational decision not to act.
My point is that there are no such people. The powerless enjoy the fantasy of conspiracy because it means that all it would take to solve our problems is some kind of board room coup of the Majestic 12 standing committee.
The reality is that everyone in the system has to act within their roles in the system. Executives at oil companies will say that they wouldn't mind a carbon tax, as long as it was equally applied to all companies. That's logical as they would continue to have a level playing field with the other oil producers and it will take years for us to get off oil as a species anyway. Oh but they don't have the power to pass an oil tax, that's for government.
Politicians in smaller countries will say, they would love to pass such a tax but unfortunately it needs to be global or it will just erode their competitive advantage without reducing emissions. Only if large trading blocs like the EU and US united on enforcing such a system could it be done.
American politicians might say that they personally would love to but they'd need a majority in the Senate, the House, and the right person in the White House.
None of these people are being disingenuous, they all have an accurate view of the limits of their own power within the system. My point is that there is no "outside the system" which can update the system to work better for large collective action problems or force a solution. It's cogs in the machine all the way up. Even the power of Donald Trump, as leader of by far the world's most powerful nation has substantial limits to his freedom of action.
Re: Hard Startups
#325This seems very related to the blog post that introduced me to Paul Graham, and in turn Hacker News, about a phenomenon he calls Schlep Blindness. http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html I would be curious what people think today's most obvious schelps or hard problems are? Nuclear Fission as in OPs post is cool, but Im thinking more along the lines of something a team of competent developers could do.
I feel like one of the hardest problems in tech is making search engine that credibly competes with Google. It's not just because the tech is hard (and it is), but also because they have some of the strongest network effects, user lock-in, and distribution deals. It sounds almost dumb/crazy for people to try, but there is a newer effort from Europe that I saw on HN recently (i.e. they've been working for ~5 years and…
I thought so but Duck Duck Go did ok going for a niche with a privacy focus. I know they don't really compete with Google but it shows you can start niche wise and potentially build.
Re: Hard Startups
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming your lack of agency extends to people much higher than you in society, without evidence and against my experience (leaders in organizations have different views -- about their organization's purpose, for example -- than the people under them, views they only share with other leaders, or free agents, if they even ever do share them). I'd say there are multiple adults in the room, and they sometimes fi…
Well, "throwaway92384", I am not assuming any such thing. I personally know a number of people who are or have been MPs in the UK and the Netherlands, senior civil servants as well as many people in leadership roles in the private sector. I don't think this makes me particularly special incidentally, the same thing is true for many people who are actively engaged in policymaking. My comment is based on extensive prof…
The rational conclusion I make from all this: the rumors of our impending demise have been greatly exaggerated, if all people with means and influence do to avert it is read bullshit from a teleprompter every now and then.
Re: Hard Startups
#327I find ycombinator to be acting completely ignorant of why and how it succeed. The whole notion that they can apply the techniques for an internet startup to hard things is bizarre. As the internet S curve comes to a close, new organizations should be built. Using ycombinator's name to launch unsuccessful startups is just asking to destroy Bs
So, oh wise one, what should we all be working on?
Re: Hard Startups
#328I find ycombinator to be acting completely ignorant of why and how it succeed. The whole notion that they can apply the techniques for an internet startup to hard things is bizarre. As the internet S curve comes to a close, new organizations should be built. Using ycombinator's name to launch unsuccessful startups is just asking to destroy Bs
I wouldn't conflate his personal blog with "official YC messaging" or something like that.
Re: Hard Startups
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
That came up recently in connection with a VR-related startup. They've been working for years, and they just canned the project and laid off about 60 people. It's all in-house code. So now the people laid off have to find new jobs. They don't have any of the buzzwords resume scanners want. Heroku? No. React? No. Unreal Engine? No. Unity? No. SpatialOS? No. WebAsm? No. Kubernetes? No. Docker? No. AWS? No. Javascript?…
Meh, I've worked 15 years almost entirely at companies using almost entirely in-house technology. Maybe it's because I don't interview for web-tech roles, but I really have never had any problems getting opportunities, and I don't think I'm unique. I think buzzwords are less relevant if you have any amount of specialist skills or significant experience. For instance, I constantly head hunted for jobs with Unreal Engi…
The lens of the HN community is technology == computer science, when the main tool you have is a hammer. Everything looks like a nail.
Re: Hard Startups
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, "throwaway92384", I am not assuming any such thing. I personally know a number of people who are or have been MPs in the UK and the Netherlands, senior civil servants as well as many people in leadership roles in the private sector. I don't think this makes me particularly special incidentally, the same thing is true for many people who are actively engaged in policymaking. My comment is based on extensive prof…
But there _are_ "such people". The wealthy elite, to be exact. They can order the government to do as they please. If the situation is dire, and their collective several trillion dollars are going to go up in smoke in their lifetime, you can bet they'd ram whatever programs they like through the government to avert that. Take the progressive icon such as Jeff Bezos. $120 billion fortune, trillion-dollar company emplo…
1) People do act irrationally, even well informed people.
2) I don't actually agree that "they can order the government to do as they please". Saudi Arabia killed one of Bezos' employees and hacked into his phone. What has he been able to compel the US government (headed by someone who hates him) to do about it? Barack Obama did attempt to change US policy on climate change and was not able to because no single person has the ability to move US policy that way.