5 ms·

The negativity in these comments is astounding. Here's someone who's investing his own hard-earned money into a "device aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencie

The negativity in these comments is astounding. Here's someone who's investing his own hard-earned money into a "device aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencies for sufferers of conditions like Alzheimer’s and dementia." And all anyone can do is complain that it's infeasible or that he's unqualified. I don't know about you, but I want more people working on these problems, not less. Seems very reminiscent of when Musk was starting SpaceX and everyone assumed he didn't know anything about the domain and would automatically fail.

cjdkcnsnd 10y ago
So when you other HN'ers make a formulaic "I'm shocked at all the negativity here" post, is it typically with the intention of riding the contrarian karma train to the top of every thread, or do you actually hold these positions?
- skrebbel 10y ago
  I write such a comment occasionally too, so I'll be happy to answer despite how downvoted you already are: a bit of both. I mean, I can't be the only one who considers HN's karma machine a fun game. An interesting and occasionally insightful game, but still, a game.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
That's a good point. Space travel was something whose principles were well-understood with plenty of worked examples. Quite unlike the Johnson investment we're talking about but let's continue. It was mainly hard to engineer on a budget due to all the variables and components involved. I was really excited but cautious about that company. I really wanted them to succeed. So, lets test your theory by having a look at one of their regularly, successful launches that 14 years investment brought them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0
- tim333 10y ago
  The Facebook sattelite launch blowing up was not typical.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    That's true. The product has had very, few uses with only a few failures. Hard to say how reliable it is until we see more launches. Which is kind of the point given this is a well-understood field vs OP investment in one that isn't. Reasons why I think SpaceX is a bad point of comparison to judge this investment.
voidz 10y ago
True. I blame it on a trend of the 2010s: friendly people who would otherwise write moderate and/or optimistic comments a decade ago, have increasingly lost motivation to partake. This is my theory at least, I can't back it up scientifically or any of that. The causes and/or reasons are that many of those people may have become parents (myself included), or have grown tired of the negativity, or frustrated by the Orwellian developments. We all know the most obvious example on HN: leave a well intended comment and get at least one cynical or even suffocating response that doesn't even get downvoted properly. It gets tiring really fast. Fast forward a couple of years, and most of what's left is enforced so-called constructivism, hyperextreme political correctness, cynisism and depression. The glory days are over, I think, and I strongly doubt that future generations will keep using the Internet for social interaction.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  I'm pulling further and further back from online communication, back in the 90's I loved talking to people around the world about technology and programming but these days I often come away with negative feelings, everyone seems so cynical and jaded or siloed off, it seems almost impossible to talk about anything new without someone carpet bombing it with the absolute most negative interpretation of whatever was said. I have reddit and HN /etc/hosts'd out on my laptops and desktops and mostly just check them occasionally from phone, if you surround yourself with that eventually it starts to soak in.
- zajd 10y ago
  It also could have something to do with the socioeconomic landscape where a vast majority of individuals simply don't have the means or ability to contribute or even participate.
  - voidz 10y ago
    Sure, can't rule it out. But I'd say you're pointing out a different (though in and of itself legitimate) problem than the problem of hostility in the sphere which many of us from the 70s and 80s grew up and old(ish) in. To be honest with you, if I just look at how those people in my very well developed country (with the Internet being ubiquitous, and being poor generally means receiving minimal benefits as opposed to having no money or place to live) behave who still do partake in the public discourse, I'd say that the problem is more with all of their bitterness than that their bitterness is caused by those who never even had a chance in the first place. As for me, I'm no saint either because I too can get bitter, annoyed, cynical and depressed from time to time. The difference is just that don't tell people off or post my unhappiness; I have the proclivity to just shut up and leave. "There's no use to arguing". Or I do my absolute best to be constructive, like now. And to add to that: these days and even years I also barely share my own happiness and/or optimism online, because I don't want my vulnerabilities and/or soft spots to become targets. In fact, I'm not even sharing most of my humanity / personality / identity online with strangers at all anymore, unless it's to reflect or in an attempt to at least offer something to counter all of the now common harshness. Like in comments such as this one. And if I'm really really honest then I also need to admit that this side of me is really closer to a character trait than that it's something implying actual personal involvement. But I digressed, sorry, so let me back up a bit to the two kinds of groups we've established. Maybe the latter group (the one you pointed out) could indeed bring something nice to the table. Assuming they could, it's not realistic to assume they would, for clearly it's not exactly an hospitable, inviting environment these days, and I'd say this just doesn't make it appealing at all. Simply put: it is what it is mainly due to those who can join in and they either freeze, fight, or flight. Who in their right mind who's not here already would want to join in on that mess?
CN7R 10y ago
My only question: is it better to start a separate fund (OS fund) or company (Kernel) for biomedical research rather than joining a pre-existing one? The article said that Pfizer annually spends $7-9bn on R&D. Maybe resources are spread too thin; people want moonshots in the biomedical industry as there were in tech, but barriers for entry in this field seem too high. The benefits are long-term, something I think private investment won't be interested in but perhaps private innovators will be.

cjdkcnsnd 10y ago

So when you other HN'ers make a formulaic "I'm shocked at all the negativity here" post, is it typically with the intention of riding the contrarian karma train to the top of every thread, or do you actually hold these positions?

skrebbel 10y ago
I write such a comment occasionally too, so I'll be happy to answer despite how downvoted you already are: a bit of both. I mean, I can't be the only one who considers HN's karma machine a fun game. An interesting and occasionally insightful game, but still, a game.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

That's a good point. Space travel was something whose principles were well-understood with plenty of worked examples. Quite unlike the Johnson investment we're talking about but let's continue. It was mainly hard to engineer on a budget due to all the variables and components involved. I was really excited but cautious about that company. I really wanted them to succeed. So, lets test your theory by having a look at one of their regularly, successful launches that 14 years investment brought them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0

tim333 10y ago
The Facebook sattelite launch blowing up was not typical.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  That's true. The product has had very, few uses with only a few failures. Hard to say how reliable it is until we see more launches. Which is kind of the point given this is a well-understood field vs OP investment in one that isn't. Reasons why I think SpaceX is a bad point of comparison to judge this investment.

voidz 10y ago

True. I blame it on a trend of the 2010s: friendly people who would otherwise write moderate and/or optimistic comments a decade ago, have increasingly lost motivation to partake. This is my theory at least, I can't back it up scientifically or any of that. The causes and/or reasons are that many of those people may have become parents (myself included), or have grown tired of the negativity, or frustrated by the Orwellian developments. We all know the most obvious example on HN: leave a well intended comment and get at least one cynical or even suffocating response that doesn't even get downvoted properly. It gets tiring really fast. Fast forward a couple of years, and most of what's left is enforced so-called constructivism, hyperextreme political correctness, cynisism and depression. The glory days are over, I think, and I strongly doubt that future generations will keep using the Internet for social interaction.

noir_lord 10y ago
I'm pulling further and further back from online communication, back in the 90's I loved talking to people around the world about technology and programming but these days I often come away with negative feelings, everyone seems so cynical and jaded or siloed off, it seems almost impossible to talk about anything new without someone carpet bombing it with the absolute most negative interpretation of whatever was said. I have reddit and HN /etc/hosts'd out on my laptops and desktops and mostly just check them occasionally from phone, if you surround yourself with that eventually it starts to soak in.
zajd 10y ago
It also could have something to do with the socioeconomic landscape where a vast majority of individuals simply don't have the means or ability to contribute or even participate.
- voidz 10y ago
  Sure, can't rule it out. But I'd say you're pointing out a different (though in and of itself legitimate) problem than the problem of hostility in the sphere which many of us from the 70s and 80s grew up and old(ish) in. To be honest with you, if I just look at how those people in my very well developed country (with the Internet being ubiquitous, and being poor generally means receiving minimal benefits as opposed to having no money or place to live) behave who still do partake in the public discourse, I'd say that the problem is more with all of their bitterness than that their bitterness is caused by those who never even had a chance in the first place. As for me, I'm no saint either because I too can get bitter, annoyed, cynical and depressed from time to time. The difference is just that don't tell people off or post my unhappiness; I have the proclivity to just shut up and leave. "There's no use to arguing". Or I do my absolute best to be constructive, like now. And to add to that: these days and even years I also barely share my own happiness and/or optimism online, because I don't want my vulnerabilities and/or soft spots to become targets. In fact, I'm not even sharing most of my humanity / personality / identity online with strangers at all anymore, unless it's to reflect or in an attempt to at least offer something to counter all of the now common harshness. Like in comments such as this one. And if I'm really really honest then I also need to admit that this side of me is really closer to a character trait than that it's something implying actual personal involvement. But I digressed, sorry, so let me back up a bit to the two kinds of groups we've established. Maybe the latter group (the one you pointed out) could indeed bring something nice to the table. Assuming they could, it's not realistic to assume they would, for clearly it's not exactly an hospitable, inviting environment these days, and I'd say this just doesn't make it appealing at all. Simply put: it is what it is mainly due to those who can join in and they either freeze, fight, or flight. Who in their right mind who's not here already would want to join in on that mess?

CN7R 10y ago

My only question: is it better to start a separate fund (OS fund) or company (Kernel) for biomedical research rather than joining a pre-existing one? The article said that Pfizer annually spends $7-9bn on R&D. Maybe resources are spread too thin; people want moonshots in the biomedical industry as there were in tech, but barriers for entry in this field seem too high. The benefits are long-term, something I think private investment won't be interested in but perhaps private innovators will be.