3 ms·

Step 1) Be a myopic silicon-valley bubble child. Step 2) Confuse "disruptive apps and services" with something difficult, like medicine. Step 3) Be naive. Step

Step 1) Be a myopic silicon-valley bubble child. Step 2) Confuse "disruptive apps and services" with something difficult, like medicine. Step 3) Be naive. Step 4) Finally give up.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Iv 10y ago
That was my reaction when Bill Gates said he would fight malaria. But then his funds really made a difference. "Cure all disease before 2100" does not seem an impossible goal and helping scientists build tools globally usable is actually a very good angle to help the medical community. Reading the article made me think that Zuckberg did his homework and may be able to spend money in an area that makes a difference over time. You know, I still hate Microsoft and Facebook, but if Bill Gates or Zuckberg decide to spend a few billions on medical research rather than on a fleet of private jet or personal theme park, I'll join the choir of applause.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Except the problem with malaria was actually the availability of funding. The solution was known, just not implemented. Totally different. Zuckerberg could do a decent job combatting a lot of disease by dumping money into poverty reduction efforts, raising overall education and health maintenance etc.
dang 10y ago
This sort of snarky dismissal is what we're trying to avoid on HN. If you have a substantive critique you're welcome to share it, but merely splashing vitriol degrades the quality of discussion we're hoping for. That's true even if the implied critique is right (i.e. even assuming you're right, that doesn't make it ok), and despite the invariable popularity of snarky comments. Also, this is name-calling: > myopic silicon-valley bubble child ... and that is not allowed: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html so please edit it out of your posts here.
- dekhn 10y ago
  A more political way to state this is to say that those of us who were trained in biology and medicine find it frustrating when people who are successful in Silicon Valley making a product that makes money, but isn't particularly valuable in a social sense, suddenly think they can transform all of healthcare in a rapid way, simply because "it's easy", only to learn "it's actually really hard! there are structural problems in addition to engineering and research problems that require decades of work!" That said I've read what Zuckerberg said, https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/can-we-cure-all-diseases-in-our-childrens-lifetime/10154087783966634 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/can-we-cure-a..., and his thesis is not completely lunatic. It's more nuanced, and actually hits most of the critical points: 1) he's talking about disease amelioration, not true cures for all diseases. 2) he's got a more realistic timeframe (not "solve cancer in 10 years") 3) he's focusing on tool building, and addressing some key structural deficiencies around how research is conducted 4) he's got a great collection of leaders to run the institute 5) it's tightly integrated with the existing research system, so it's likely the results of the research will be published in prominent journals This places Zuckerberg and Chan in the "likely to show impact over time" category. That said I still have to deal with lots of short-sighted people in Silicon Valley who believe that machine learning is going to cure cancer tomorrow, and that is myopic, naive, and, well, isolated from reality.
  - dang 10y ago
    This is an interesting comment. It could be summarized as: "1. Some people are idiots; 2. The people in this article aren't idiots, have done their homework, and are getting this mostly right. 3. Still, some people are idiots." The secret to substantive discussion on HN is having the discipline to address the specifics of what's interesting in a story, and resisting the temptation to let loose on unrelated idiocy. That's hard, because letting loose on unrelated idiocy feels good. But it stuffs the discussion with junk. (This is a general point, not just about your post. If everyone did it the way you did we'd all be much better off.)

Step 1) Be a myopic silicon-valley bubble child. Step 2) Confuse "disruptive apps and services" with something difficult, like medicine. Step 3) Be naive. Step 4) Finally give up.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Iv 10y ago

That was my reaction when Bill Gates said he would fight malaria. But then his funds really made a difference. "Cure all disease before 2100" does not seem an impossible goal and helping scientists build tools globally usable is actually a very good angle to help the medical community. Reading the article made me think that Zuckberg did his homework and may be able to spend money in an area that makes a difference over time. You know, I still hate Microsoft and Facebook, but if Bill Gates or Zuckberg decide to spend a few billions on medical research rather than on a fleet of private jet or personal theme park, I'll join the choir of applause.

ethanbond 10y ago
Except the problem with malaria was actually the availability of funding. The solution was known, just not implemented. Totally different. Zuckerberg could do a decent job combatting a lot of disease by dumping money into poverty reduction efforts, raising overall education and health maintenance etc.

dang 10y ago

This sort of snarky dismissal is what we're trying to avoid on HN. If you have a substantive critique you're welcome to share it, but merely splashing vitriol degrades the quality of discussion we're hoping for. That's true even if the implied critique is right (i.e. even assuming you're right, that doesn't make it ok), and despite the invariable popularity of snarky comments. Also, this is name-calling: > myopic silicon-valley bubble child ... and that is not allowed: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html so please edit it out of your posts here.

dekhn 10y ago
A more political way to state this is to say that those of us who were trained in biology and medicine find it frustrating when people who are successful in Silicon Valley making a product that makes money, but isn't particularly valuable in a social sense, suddenly think they can transform all of healthcare in a rapid way, simply because "it's easy", only to learn "it's actually really hard! there are structural problems in addition to engineering and research problems that require decades of work!" That said I've read what Zuckerberg said, https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/can-we-cure-all-diseases-in-our-childrens-lifetime/10154087783966634 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/can-we-cure-a..., and his thesis is not completely lunatic. It's more nuanced, and actually hits most of the critical points: 1) he's talking about disease amelioration, not true cures for all diseases. 2) he's got a more realistic timeframe (not "solve cancer in 10 years") 3) he's focusing on tool building, and addressing some key structural deficiencies around how research is conducted 4) he's got a great collection of leaders to run the institute 5) it's tightly integrated with the existing research system, so it's likely the results of the research will be published in prominent journals This places Zuckerberg and Chan in the "likely to show impact over time" category. That said I still have to deal with lots of short-sighted people in Silicon Valley who believe that machine learning is going to cure cancer tomorrow, and that is myopic, naive, and, well, isolated from reality.
- dang 10y ago
  This is an interesting comment. It could be summarized as: "1. Some people are idiots; 2. The people in this article aren't idiots, have done their homework, and are getting this mostly right. 3. Still, some people are idiots." The secret to substantive discussion on HN is having the discipline to address the specifics of what's interesting in a story, and resisting the temptation to let loose on unrelated idiocy. That's hard, because letting loose on unrelated idiocy feels good. But it stuffs the discussion with junk. (This is a general point, not just about your post. If everyone did it the way you did we'd all be much better off.)