4 ms·

Sigh. Mark Zuckerberg is not the fellow to listen to if you want to build the future. He's only managed to re-invent the past. AOL, MySpace, FriendFeed, and pro

Sigh. Mark Zuckerberg is not the fellow to listen to if you want to build the future. He's only managed to re-invent the past. AOL, MySpace, FriendFeed, and probably a few others I'm forgetting. edit: Folks are getting a bit philosophical so I'll clarify. There are better models to look up to if you want to invent the future: Bret Victor, Elon Musk, Alan Kay, Richard Feynman, etc. Each of those people did invent the future or is currently in the process of actually doing it. Study the great minds, not the great businesses and business practitioners.

colechristensen 10y ago
But that's all the future or the present or anything is... Iterating on old ideas. There aren't any new ideas, creativity isn't pulling things from the ether, it's looking at old things in new ways. Geocities was an iteration on having your own webserver, myspace was the new geocities, facebook was the new myspace, $x is the new facebook ... it's just continuing on and on. Netflix is the same on-demand video that had been available forever in pay-per-view, etc. but it was just a little bit different and a little bit better and it has destroyed several old business models because of it (cable tv, video rental stores, broadcast tv, etc.) A car is just a nice horseless carriage which is just a more comfortable way to get around by horse which is just walking with help. Human being are just complicated ways for strings of nucleic acid to replicate themselves.
- visarga 10y ago
  > Human being are just complicated ways for strings of nucleic acid to replicate themselves. And from that evolved mechanisms for learning, consciousness, culture and technology. Amazing creative power in such a "small" task. I think the drive for survival is the root cause of all the other reinforcement signals that drive the brain development, such as the need for food, sex, sleep, companionship, learning and so on. Shaped under the influence of these reward systems, the brain evolves to create the subjective, intelligent and ineffable experience we all know we have but can't properly explain.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    Assuming the 'drive for survival' is a root cause misses the point. There isn't a point. You exist because your ancestors reproduced. That's it. The traits that they had happened to result in reproduction given their life experiences. A "drive for survival" happens to be one of these traits that shows up often and for easy-enough to understand reasons, but it just happens to be one of the traits that exists in the population. The environment shapes what reproduces, but it's messy and prone to random circumstance. We're all the result of a billions of years old monte-carlo simulation.
melling 10y ago
Sigh, you've overlooked the fact that he built a hugely profitable business so now he can now throw money into "building the future". AI, VR, etc. Google was probably the 20th search engine. They make most of their money selling ads. Microsoft just rebuilt CP/M and bought many of their big apps. It's what you do after you build a great business that matters.
- nostromo 10y ago
  Making gobs of money and making the future are orthogonal though. Exxon makes tons of money but is likely irrelevant to the future.
  - melling 10y ago
    "It's what you do after you build a great business that matters"
    - dkarapetyan 10y ago
      Why's that? Why not just skip the business step entirely? There is some kind of fallacy in your argument.
      - melling 10y ago
        How are you going to pay for all those moonshot projects that cost billions and might not make money for a decade, if ever. Google still hasn't made any money on the self-driving car. Oculus Rift?
        dkarapetyan 10y ago
        I don't think Oculus Rift is going anywhere. They bungled that project pretty well. My question was more about your assumption about getting some kind of cash cow and then milking it to provide for "moonshots". It is one model that works but it's not the only one. Well, actually, it's debatable whether it works or not.
brlewis 10y ago
I wish he had reinvented FriendFeed. Or maybe not because I'd be wasting too much time on Facebook.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

colechristensen 10y ago

But that's all the future or the present or anything is... Iterating on old ideas. There aren't any new ideas, creativity isn't pulling things from the ether, it's looking at old things in new ways. Geocities was an iteration on having your own webserver, myspace was the new geocities, facebook was the new myspace, $x is the new facebook ... it's just continuing on and on. Netflix is the same on-demand video that had been available forever in pay-per-view, etc. but it was just a little bit different and a little bit better and it has destroyed several old business models because of it (cable tv, video rental stores, broadcast tv, etc.) A car is just a nice horseless carriage which is just a more comfortable way to get around by horse which is just walking with help. Human being are just complicated ways for strings of nucleic acid to replicate themselves.

visarga 10y ago
> Human being are just complicated ways for strings of nucleic acid to replicate themselves. And from that evolved mechanisms for learning, consciousness, culture and technology. Amazing creative power in such a "small" task. I think the drive for survival is the root cause of all the other reinforcement signals that drive the brain development, such as the need for food, sex, sleep, companionship, learning and so on. Shaped under the influence of these reward systems, the brain evolves to create the subjective, intelligent and ineffable experience we all know we have but can't properly explain.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  Assuming the 'drive for survival' is a root cause misses the point. There isn't a point. You exist because your ancestors reproduced. That's it. The traits that they had happened to result in reproduction given their life experiences. A "drive for survival" happens to be one of these traits that shows up often and for easy-enough to understand reasons, but it just happens to be one of the traits that exists in the population. The environment shapes what reproduces, but it's messy and prone to random circumstance. We're all the result of a billions of years old monte-carlo simulation.

melling 10y ago

Sigh, you've overlooked the fact that he built a hugely profitable business so now he can now throw money into "building the future". AI, VR, etc. Google was probably the 20th search engine. They make most of their money selling ads. Microsoft just rebuilt CP/M and bought many of their big apps. It's what you do after you build a great business that matters.

nostromo 10y ago
Making gobs of money and making the future are orthogonal though. Exxon makes tons of money but is likely irrelevant to the future.
- melling 10y ago
  "It's what you do after you build a great business that matters"
  - dkarapetyan 10y ago
    Why's that? Why not just skip the business step entirely? There is some kind of fallacy in your argument.
    - melling 10y ago
      How are you going to pay for all those moonshot projects that cost billions and might not make money for a decade, if ever. Google still hasn't made any money on the self-driving car. Oculus Rift?
      - dkarapetyan 10y ago
        I don't think Oculus Rift is going anywhere. They bungled that project pretty well. My question was more about your assumption about getting some kind of cash cow and then milking it to provide for "moonshots". It is one model that works but it's not the only one. Well, actually, it's debatable whether it works or not.

brlewis 10y ago

I wish he had reinvented FriendFeed. Or maybe not because I'd be wasting too much time on Facebook.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]