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

What I learned at work this year

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: What I learned at work this year

#91

Post by wmil »

Retric wrote: post #71
rtx wrote: post #67

> Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation. So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

The big problem with nuclear is that it's only economical to run the reactors at full blast 24/7. However demand goes up through the day and down over night.

You need to pair it with some sort of grid energy storage. That's not quite a solved problem.

Personally I'm a fan of offshore compressed air... https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/toronto-hydro-p...

Re: What I learned at work this year

#92

Post by kup0 »

davebryand wrote: post #87

"We still need a lot of innovation to solve problems like malaria or obesity, but we are also going to be focusing more on improving the quality of life." To solve obesity we need the opposite of innovation. Nature has delivered the perfect array of nutrition for the human animal to thrive. We have innovated ourself into obesity and the reversion to the simple truth of natural nutrition is the cure.

A reversion that very few will undertake. Unless there is some kind of innovation that can affect that (social engineering? who knows)

So in light of the harsh reality that obesity is essentially a given, what CAN be done?

Re: What I learned at work this year

#93

Post by igrekel »

ddalex wrote: post #22
apatters wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Bill ever been good at predictions? No mention of smartphones or social media in The Road Ahead. Blindsided by how quickly the Internet developed, underestimated "bazaar" economies that enabled millions of people building both software and content. All the smart home stuff he was in love with has gone hardly anywhere. I think he's very smart and great at setting huge goals then hitting them, but I'm not sure he's…

There is this panel discussion with Jobs and Gates, circa mid 2000s, where Gates describes the future of computing in now-obvious iPad form, and Jobs is obviously taking mental notes

Gates and Jobs were both familiar with the DynaBook concept from Parc, I don't see how this would be a case where Jobs is taking Gates' ideas.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#94

Post by kup0 »

rcates wrote: post #52
kinkora wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I preface my statement below with a disclaimer that I live in a "developed" or "1st-world" country but have previously lived and experienced other less developed economies. Anyway, it feels to me Gates is fixing a real problem but with very 1st world solutions? > For example, software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating bet…

I am sad to agree with you. We in tech love to believe - with our inflated egos due to recent successes improving the world - that every problem is solved through more tech. I think we need to watch tech fail to solve some problems and experience that failure first hand to really believe that some problems are rooted in culture and social norms, not in a lack of guidance or convenience from some app. I feel like we'v…

An exception I could see to this is if somehow technology could be employed to affect those cultural/social norms? Maybe the problem is where we're aiming the technology, and not technology itself.

Though, I could be wrong about that. I agree that there are some problems not solved through more technology and the "there should be an app for that" mentality can be a problem.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#95

Post by beat »

davebryand wrote: post #87

"We still need a lot of innovation to solve problems like malaria or obesity, but we are also going to be focusing more on improving the quality of life." To solve obesity we need the opposite of innovation. Nature has delivered the perfect array of nutrition for the human animal to thrive. We have innovated ourself into obesity and the reversion to the simple truth of natural nutrition is the cure.

"The simple truth of natural nutrition" is scarcity and starvation. Obesity is a result of the ready availability of the kinds of foods (carbs and fat) that are "naturally" hard to get, so our body hoards them when it has access. We innovated ourselves into effectively unlimited food. All diets are unhealthy if access isn't limited.

I like not going hungry on a regular basis. Most people do.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#96

Post by Retric »

irq-1 wrote: post #84
Retric wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a US or western problem. China, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc also use minimal nuclear power because of basic economic issues. It’s fine under 10%, but as you scale up the problems get worse. PS: Rosenergoatom which runs Russia’s nuclear power plants has seemingly made progress in lowering operating costs, but it’s not clear how much of that progress is real. Though Russia is planning to ramp up to ~35% nuclear a…

Bill Gates thinks he can run nuclear power-plants at a profit, and safely. Nationalizing plants that aren't safe would let investors try. Governments could reduce up-front regulations by punishing reckless investors.

Considering the ~US$187 billion dollar cleanup effort after the most recent failure, just let them try can be an extremely expensive proposition. Operate for 50 years then say, sorry cleanup is your problem now suckers is similarly an issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup

That’s the catch 22, you need to not just be extremely safe but able to convince others outside your organization that it’s going to work. Having been burned twice by failure modes outside the original context it becomes even more difficult to innovate. Novel designs have novel problems and unknown unkowns can be a huge deal.

Can you get away with fewer guards? Well probably, but the minimum is not clear. How about thinner walls, again probably but can you convince others it’s a good tradeoff? Now extend that to everything.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#97

Post by max76 »

scarface74 wrote: post #58
max76 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His most famous prediction was one he helped make true. Microsoft's original mission statement was "A computer on every desk and in every home"

Only if you consider first world countries and even then it’s a stretch. The smart phone market made “computers” far more accessible than Windows ever did.

Yes, there literally isn't a computer in every home. Less than 9 out of 10 households in the US currently have a computer[0]. Yes the smartphone made computers much more accessible, especially in third world countries. The iPhone was also released 23 years after the founding of Microsoft, an eternity in the tech industry. Between the founding of Microsoft and the release of Windows XP computers changed from something in a single digit percentage of households to more than half of all households in the US. That's a major accomplishment, and Microsoft played a large role in it.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/214641/household-adoptio...

Re: What I learned at work this year

#98

Post by tozeur »

beat wrote: post #95
davebryand wrote: post #87

"We still need a lot of innovation to solve problems like malaria or obesity, but we are also going to be focusing more on improving the quality of life." To solve obesity we need the opposite of innovation. Nature has delivered the perfect array of nutrition for the human animal to thrive. We have innovated ourself into obesity and the reversion to the simple truth of natural nutrition is the cure.

"The simple truth of natural nutrition" is scarcity and starvation. Obesity is a result of the ready availability of the kinds of foods (carbs and fat) that are "naturally" hard to get, so our body hoards them when it has access. We innovated ourselves into effectively unlimited food. All diets are unhealthy if access isn't limited. I like not going hungry on a regular basis. Most people do.

Most healthy people I know aren’t chronically hungry. You’ll be chronically hungry if your diet consists of simple carbs (white bread, soda, chips).

Re: What I learned at work this year

#99

Post by davebryand »

kup0 wrote: post #92
davebryand wrote: post #87

"We still need a lot of innovation to solve problems like malaria or obesity, but we are also going to be focusing more on improving the quality of life." To solve obesity we need the opposite of innovation. Nature has delivered the perfect array of nutrition for the human animal to thrive. We have innovated ourself into obesity and the reversion to the simple truth of natural nutrition is the cure.

A reversion that very few will undertake. Unless there is some kind of innovation that can affect that (social engineering? who knows) So in light of the harsh reality that obesity is essentially a given, what CAN be done?

I don't see why anything should be done. Obesity is your body telling you that you are doing food consumption wrong. If the human that is wearing a large body in life doesn't find the awareness to recognize that they must change their behavior, I don't believe society should try to innovate them a thinner body. Their currently large body is a gift from nature intended to signal that a course correction is needed. This enlarged body (which will usually come back to shape and health through corrected nutrition) is a manifestation of a more fundamental internal issue (mental or emotional). Innovating thin bodies while not addressing the internal issues will only cause more problems for this human and society at large.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#100

Post by Wowfunhappy »

davebryand wrote: post #99
kup0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reversion that very few will undertake. Unless there is some kind of innovation that can affect that (social engineering? who knows) So in light of the harsh reality that obesity is essentially a given, what CAN be done?

I don't see why anything should be done. Obesity is your body telling you that you are doing food consumption wrong. If the human that is wearing a large body in life doesn't find the awareness to recognize that they must change their behavior, I don't believe society should try to innovate them a thinner body. Their currently large body is a gift from nature intended to signal that a course correction is needed. Thi…

> Obesity is your body telling you that you are doing food consumption wrong.

On the contrary, obesity likely exists because evolution optimized for the ability to survive long famines, which isn't a big problem in most developed nations nowadays.

Post reply on HN