The science research today in most universities are not driven by curiosity at all. It is most funding drive and in a lot of cases researchers has even less freedoms than an industrial professionals.
[flagged]
No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
351–360 of 528 posts
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you make this argument more rigorous? I’m just not following the connections here. It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain. One of your arguments is that the strike price for options is set based on a certain amount of stock in circulation, and decreasing that amount will “artificially” raise the stock price, making the options more valuable. I agree that higher stock price bene…
> It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain. My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor. Unless a) they sell some of the stock or b) it pays dividends they don't see the benefit of a higher stock price or reduced share count. Qualified dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate. So anyone who says "buybacks are more tax-adv…
> My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor.
It's better for me as a long term investor because I can better control my tax liability. It also allows for long term growth without a tax drag until I'm ready to switch out of my accumulation phase.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#353I thought this was going somewhere rather than aiming to be a dictionary with pictures or am I missing a key paragraph?
[flagged]
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#354Academia has become a racket that is actively hostile to technological progress. I want them to get exactly 0 of my tax money for anything.
[flagged]
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#355Earlier 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…
And yet when Jobs returned to Apple he blew up ATG (the Advanced Technology Group) that gave us Quicktime, etc. He also shutdown Apple's research library (and gave all the books to Stanford, I believe). He seemed to have little patience for "scientists" — preferred engineers that shipped shit. I think that at best he saw research as expensive, at worst he saw it as elitist.
"real artists ship" - Jobs
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#356Earlier 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…
Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?
The same reason you don't give a store $2 for something priced at $1 or write anything other than a zero in the box on your tax form that lets you pay more if you like.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?
1. They don't have to 2. If employees want to be exposed to excess profit (and loss) they can buy shares like everyone else. (Not a super strong argument tbh) 3. It's impossible to measure how much any given employee/department really contributed and they don't want to create a culture of chasing fat bonus checks. 4. To some extent they do tend to. Profit sharing plans and ESOPs aren't that uncommon
> 2. If employees want to be exposed to excess profit (and loss)
It's funny that people tell me they want this because they'll see some of the sales outliers. But then I explain that 1/2 or more of their salary will be dependent on some type of performance metric and most clam up.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#358There's something odd in this argument. If you come at it from a Canadian perspective Canada seriously spent on neural network computer science when almost no one else did (many in AI considered the entire thing discredited and impossible), now the (financial) gains from that are almost entirely in a foreign country. The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-…
That's purely an issue of living next to the USA and Canada's system not rewarding risktakers/startups like the USA does. If you have the next billion dollar idea would you rather get rich in Canada or the USA?
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#359Your article strongly consonated with the ideas I often try to communicate to those around me. I wish there were more open discussion about biases related to PhD qualifications and the growing influence of venture-capital-style practices in science. Many researchers dedicate themselves to exploring new and uncertain areas of knowledge, yet their work is sometimes undervalued by hiring managers and industrial professi…
As many gripes as there are about the competitive grant process, at least in the US it was formerly adjudicated by scientific experts. (Yes, subject to groupthink and overweighting en vogue topics, but still by experts)
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#360Nice article, I completely agree that government funding is essential for America to sustain its technological advancement.. After reading it, we need to validate the following points:
1.The government should periodically review how many funded research projects are successfully completed and lead to tangible outcomes.
2. The government should ensure that research funding is properly utilized for the intended purposes, so that resources are used effectively and efficiently.
3. It is necessary to study how artificial intelligence can be leveraged to reduce the cost and duration of research while accelerating scientific experimentation.