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

391–400 of 528 posts

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

#391

Post by hansvm »

bloppe wrote: post #293
epistasis wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Seriously spent" where serious is less than the cost of a single bomber for the military. I forget what Geoffrey Hinton said it was, but it was an embarrassingly small pittance. Military spending is largely economic dead weight, roughly the equivalent of handouts. And the end result is deterrence in a game of prisoners dilemma. Yet it is sacrosanct, and subject to ever increasing budgets for no gain.

Just look at all the handouts going to Ukrainian soldiers right now. What silly economic dead weight!

The appropriated funds were only 4% of the defense budget, a lot of which still hasn't been handed out, and half of the handouts weren't even weapons and other military supplies. You could fund 10 Ukrainian wars at the same level and still have an extra 150% idle capacity.

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

#392

Post by sehansen »

ModernMech wrote: post #120
7thaccount wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing against research universities as good stuff does occur there, but it just seems like it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. I think it helps to have scientists and engineers closer to the problem and who don't have to spend a huge amount of their time writing grants and training grad students.

> it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. A loss for whom? Society? Of course, and that's exactly why they don't happen anymore -- because while they were a boon for society they were a terrible bet for the company. And when a company has a choice between doing good for their bottom line or doing good for society, 100% of the time they choose their bottom line. I mean, look at the legacy of X…

Yeah, no, the ROI on Xerox Parc was excellent for Xerox, because of the technology they _did_ successfully commercialize on their own: the laser printer. It helped Xerox to $8 billion in revenue in 1984, a level Apple didn't beat until 2006. Even Microsoft didn't beat Xerox in revenue until the year 2000, where Xerox had $19 billion in revenue. Apple didn't reach that level until 2010. So you could say that it took the iPhone to beat laser printers; the Machintosh wasn't enough.

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

#393

Post by aredox »

terminalshort wrote: post #162
fundad wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who should read this article and won't are actually an anti-growth movement. The silicon valley bros I work with are lapping up the sabotage because they want a lower standard of living in America and less science and innovation because they are already comfortable enough. Their sites are set only on the short-term gains of anti-Muslim and anti-abortion sentiment and "though talk" on immigration. Results a…

SV bros want less science and innovation, and are anti-abortion / anti-immigration? Have you been to SV?

See: https://archive.is/GxSLU

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

#394

Post by andrewlgood »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #260
terminalshort wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As others have mentioned that isn't comparable because salaries are taxed. The tax rate on unrealized gains in the US is zero percent from what I understand.

Not correct. Capital Gains taxes depend on the holding period. Short term capital gains (stock held less than a year) are taxed at the same rate as salaries (ordinary income rate). Long term capital gains (stock held at least a year), are taxed on a reduced level that peaks out at 20% (depends on total taxable income) with a possible additional 3.8% Obama Net Investment Tax.

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

#396

Post by JKCalhoun »

dmix wrote: post #278
JKCalhoun wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wasn't Apple burning money when he joined?

Apple was giving away the Keys to the Kingdom by way of licensing Macintosh clones, among other things. If ATG were responsible for hemorrhaging cash I am not sure why they did not re-appear then when Apple was firing on all cylinders. Only Jony was crowned.

And there's no way the library and its books were a cost — unless perhaps it was attracting snooty engineers who were reading Foley and van Dam when they should have been fixing bugs. ;-) (That actually might have been me.)

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

#397

Post by andrewlgood »

moffkalast wrote: post #126
7thaccount wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing against research universities as good stuff does occur there, but it just seems like it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. I think it helps to have scientists and engineers closer to the problem and who don't have to spend a huge amount of their time writing grants and training grad students.

Yeah if you go check almost any major scientific breakthrough of the past century it usually starts with "some guy was working in a corporate lab with an unlimited budget". We're stagnating as a species a lot more, but at least the shareholders got a payout for their hard work of doing literally nothing. Rent seeking at its worst.

Silly argument. Everything in gravitational physics goes back to Newton? Who cares about Convex Optimization if you do not undertand gravity? Math goes back to Euclid and the Greeks?

Mankind has consistently built upon existing knowledge. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. (Newton)"

IMHO, what we are seeing is the US was generating 50% of the world's GDP at the end of World War II. In that era it could afford to many non-economical things - Marshall Plan, funding research at universities, etc. The US is no longer the dominant economic engine. It actually has to prioritize its spending. Money spent on research is money not spent on food stamps, housing the homeless, defense.

What is never mentioned in these discussions is how much money has been spent on research that did nothing. Advanced nothing. When that is factored in, what is the ROI of university-based research?

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

#398

Post by JKCalhoun »

WD-42 wrote: post #321
UncleOxidant wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, he went to Xerox PARC and copied their research.

He also didn’t seem to have an issue borrowing Unix, which obviously has a rich history of research and academia.

I could be putting too fine a point on it, but my impression was that he was kind of jealous of "academia". Not only did he not graduate from but even seemed to eschew higher learning. And to be sure he would have had a harder time bullshitting an expert in a given domain. They had a kind of power of knowledge that he lacked.

At the same time he was clearly enamored with Avadis, very much the academic — appeared to be grooming him for role of Apple CEO. He must have been very disappointed when Avadis left the fold.

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

#399

Post by nyeah »

nradov wrote: post #264
nyeah wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand tends to push price up. Investors don't really know who's buying until later. But yes, of course it's a toy example. I should probably have made the buybacks drive the price from $1.10 to $1.20 or something, with a much smaller reward for the founder & CEO. I got bored and kept it simple. (Or I got greedy for that $1 profit, maybe.) All the working parts of the example are on display. You can make other exampl…

Well there you go again, lying and making things up. The trades are executed in compliance with Rule 10b-18. If you want anyone to take you seriously then at least come up with a realistic example.

I'm talking about how equity works at the most basic level, in a vehicle worth 1000 USD. It's an ice cream stand, capisce?

You may well be offended because we were rude to each other. That's fair. But you're not telling me to stop being a dick. You're telling me my ice cream stand has to be listed on a major US stock exchange. That's not a strong argument, and it's not really on topic.

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

#400

Post by Ar-Curunir »

andrewlgood wrote: post #397
moffkalast wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if you go check almost any major scientific breakthrough of the past century it usually starts with "some guy was working in a corporate lab with an unlimited budget". We're stagnating as a species a lot more, but at least the shareholders got a payout for their hard work of doing literally nothing. Rent seeking at its worst.

Silly argument. Everything in gravitational physics goes back to Newton? Who cares about Convex Optimization if you do not undertand gravity? Math goes back to Euclid and the Greeks? Mankind has consistently built upon existing knowledge. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. (Newton)" IMHO, what we are seeing is the US was generating 50% of the world's GDP at the end of World War II.…

Oh no! I wonder what the US could have achieved if instead of spending 10s of billions of dollars per year, it could instead have used those to fund more trillion-dollar wars!!
Post reply on HN