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

421–430 of 528 posts

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

#421

Post by runako »

vinorathna-r wrote: post #364
croes wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giant magnetoresistance was discovered in 1988, it became useful in HDDs in 1997. If they had evaluated 1993 the discovery would be called useless and a waste of money.

I agree that basic research like the discovery of GMR often has an unpredictable timeline and shouldn't be judged too early.. However, I still believe that a light-touch monitoring system is important. It's not about evaluating the usefulness of the discovery in the short term, but rather ensuring that: Funds are being used for the stated research goals (fiscal responsibility). The project is making scientific progre…

> The project is making scientific progress as defined by its own milestones (accountability).

Not a researcher, but my perception is that this is already part of the process. Is it not?

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

#422

Post by runako »

vinorathna-r wrote: post #360

Nice 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 purpose…

Another way of looking at it is:

- the current system works for the benefit of US industry, military, and the economy

- the current system has delivered real results over many decades

- nobody has proposed how an alternate solution would work ("use AI" is not an answer)

- much less an alternate that has been tested at all

- even much less an alternate that has shown any results

A sensible approach would be to do trials of other approaches before making changes that will ensure Americans are poorer for decades than they otherwise would be.

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

#423

Post by mike_hearn »

JohnMakin wrote: post #163
mike_hearn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Your original claim was "there is no evidence to suggest this is true (teaching critical thinking)". I presented my own anecdotal evidence, and then a counterexample. I'm sure there are many, many more. Moving the goalposts is not a discussion I'm interested in having and you seem to have a very set viewpoint on this topic.

But I disagree with your counterexample - Stanford may say they do this but I don't think they do given the evidence I saw. Or at least, you'd have to explicitly seek it out as a student to get such exposure.

So we're left with your anecdotes. Lots of people have such anecdotes. People saying "I learned critical thinking at university" are a dime a dozen, but their beliefs aren't evidence they really did.

I don't think this is moving the goalposts. Obviously when I meant "no evidence" I meant no evidence that could persuade someone who didn't agree with the proposition. Just saying "yes they do" isn't evidence.

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

#424

Post by newyankee »

bo1024 wrote: post #387
bheadmaster wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a prisoner's dilemma, but with a large number of prisoners.

Tragedy of the commons

probably everyone realises this and wants to make away with as much as they can before the ultimate rugpull

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

#425

Post by runako »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #368

Just seems a very idealistic and almost simplistic view of how a thing should work best because it feels like it should work but the reality is academia gets completely outpaced by private companies. SpaceX, GPT4, Ozempic, list goes on.

There is no SpaceX without the ability to build on the (public) advancements of NASA and the public willingness to pay SpaceX taxpayer dollars for speculative flights.

There is no Ozempic without federal funds for basic research to identify GLP-1. (Nordisk started their research downstream of the US taxpayer's contributions.)

GPT-4, as its builders would certainly admit, is a descendant of early work in the field. This work involves a significant amount of work funded by DoD.

None of this is to detract from these products. But there is no point in pretending that e.g. rocket research is not generally funded by militaries (governments), on which SpaceX built.

In general, if you a citing something with a brand name and a trademark, you are talking about something that is not basic research. Basic research in the US is overwhelmingly government-funded for the simple reason that companies do not invest on the time horizons required and in general cannot take on the amount of risk entailed.

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

#426

Post by tdb7893 »

fidotron wrote: post #64

There'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-…

I don't really understand how you come to the conclusion that the current system is non-functioning. There are tons of examples of it working (I even have members of my family who took their research to make products) and for the rocket example experts didn't think it was literally impossible, just not cost effective with the current technology (e.g. the space shuttle was reusable but very expensive). I don't think that's some huge failure given SpaceX had a lot of launch failures and went nearly bankrupt before the first launch (and even after that it was a long road to profitability, I thought it took 20 years to get to an operating profit). This is also ignoring how SpaceX is operating within the current system also.

It's not perfect but if you replace the system you're gonna find the same sorts or errors since it's impossible to accurately guess future value of uncertain engineering projects.

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

#427

Post by fragmede »

philipallstar wrote: post #416
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, the irony in saying "All major research is done by companies" while typing your message out to post ON THE INTERNET. LOL.

Basically all of the internet is powered by software, standards, computers, networks and storage created by companies.

Ah yes, companies like UCLA + MIT (TCP), USC/ISI (DNS, Email/RFC 822), CERN (HTTP, World Wide Web), UC Berkeley (Unix sockets / BSD networking stack). IETF (BGP,TLS), University of Delaware (NTP), MIT/CSAIL/W3C (HTML, CSS, Ethernet).

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

#428

Post by ElevenLathe »

boroboro4 wrote: post #133
cgh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I believe in the US ordinary dividends are taxed at the income tax rate which is much higher than the capital gains rate.

It doesn’t make sense to compare ordinary dividends to capital gains - either compare ordinary to short term gains or qualified to long term gains.

Why? These are just rules in a made-up game. They can be anything we want.

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

#429

Post by philipallstar »

fragmede wrote: post #427
philipallstar wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically all of the internet is powered by software, standards, computers, networks and storage created by companies.

Ah yes, companies like UCLA + MIT (TCP), USC/ISI (DNS, Email/RFC 822), CERN (HTTP, World Wide Web), UC Berkeley (Unix sockets / BSD networking stack). IETF (BGP,TLS), University of Delaware (NTP), MIT/CSAIL/W3C (HTML, CSS, Ethernet).

Do you mind removing all the work done that was sponsored by companies before I proceed with a response on what's left?

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

#430

Post by justonceokay »

fidotron wrote: post #64

There'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-…

> he-that-shall-not-be-named

Who are you talking about? It’s childish

Post reply on HN