7 ms·

So what do you think are the big problems being worked on today which people are overlooking because the technology isn't as sexy as self-driving cars? I agree

So what do you think are the big problems being worked on today which people are overlooking because the technology isn't as sexy as self-driving cars? I agree with you that funding chases the flashy stuff, and real businesses are built on substance. I'm just curious what you think will end up breaking out from this era of funding. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I heard an interesting tidbit from a famous investor about the dot com bubble: you either invested in Google or you didn't. I wonder if things will turn out similar this time as I still haven't seen a good IPO from a tech company in years (would love for people to provide counter-examples as I don't track this very closely).

jacquesm 9y ago
> So what do you think are the big problems being worked on today which people are overlooking because the technology isn't as sexy as self-driving cars? Making computers disappear.
- germinalphrase 9y ago
  Which would be ... ubiquitous AR? What is the end vision for this idea?
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    See Vinge's novel Rainbows End. It's a combo of the AR plus having sensors/effectors/networking embedded in all the stuff around you for computing to work with. The "internet of things" starts to go that way, but what I've heard of hasn't sounded that impressive. Seems like it needs to get way better at security and interoperability, though it's not my field.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Ubiquitous computing without proper security and interop is a non-starter. The present day internet of things to me looks mostly like companies that are in the 'goods' business that are desperately trying to get into the 'services' business because they would like themselves some slice of that recurring revenue.
      - abecedarius 9y ago
        Yes, I want to buy things that can talk only to my network, while apparently they want me to pay to host XYZcorp's botnet.
  - danielharrison 9y ago
    Make someone rich, as is any idea.
- samstave 9y ago
  I totally disagree with this. 1. "computers" HAVE disappeared; AKA ubiquitous surveillance is already here. 2. I dont want to see a bunch of people flailing their arms. I dont want a new crop of "lip readers" who are looking at the body movements of others and intercepting their actions intentions (imaging ML/AI/CV applied to watching a crowd of people and IDing all the apps/interactions/intentions they are performing) 3. Organic Humanism will be a thing. Fuck technology - I literally want to walk into Yosemite and not have a single digital thread connecting me to the outside world. 4. Central control. "invisible computers" literally means that ALL power over human thought shall exist in the "cloud" -- where all control/tech/physicality is abstracted from any naive mind. 5. Education flounders; Try teaching some kids about the state of the internet in 20 years when they have never seen a computer in physicality. They have only interacted (unknowingly, ubiquitously, and without their will 100% of their entire little lives) -- entering a FaceGoog.gov datacenter would literally be like Neo waking up in the Matrix vat of human sludge. So -- as someone who was pushing for and played my tiny part in the creation of the state of things due to my awe of the imagined future of cyberpunk reality. FUCK THIS IDEA COMPLETELY and kill it with fire... I could go on...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > I could go on You could, but please don't because you take a one line comment, completely fail to understand it and its implications and then give a whole pile of wild exaggerations based on that misunderstanding.
    - samstave 9y ago
      Please expand. You take one line, attach some deeper meaning to it and then denigrate those who "misunderstand" a single phrase. Also, you attempt to make me look the fool by not understanding the simplistic genius of your comment. If it is so easy to get - then why didn't I get it? So, no. Your comment is BS - making computers invisible, if its such a deeper meaning that I missed -- explain. That's as infamous for you as the "you're holding it wrong" statement is for Jobs. :-P Thanks
      - 9y ago
ec109685 9y ago
What does the tidbit mean? That the success or failure of a VC / Investor during those times was whether you invested in Google?
nostrademons 9y ago
If I knew that, I'd a.) be a lot richer than I am and b.) wouldn't tell the Internet. I just feel that we're looking in the wrong places for the next big idea. The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work. (Gall's Law: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.")
- chubot 9y ago
  I'm sympathetic to the small idea thing (I wrote a long comment to your original reply). But that doesn't seem true in the case of the web and the PC. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee This project is experimental and of course comes without any warranty whatsoever. However, it could start a revolution in information access. - (19 August 1991), the announcement of the first WWW hypertext browser on the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.next.announce. TBL knew that the WWW would be "world wide". He explicitly designed it that way. So I would say the web is small TECHNOLOGY, but not a small idea. It was a huge idea. Although honestly, I don't think the tech was that small for the day either. GUIs + networking was not super easy in 1991. There were still a lot of unsolved problems (e.g. DOS wasn't even a multi-tasking OS, I remember you had to download WinSock or whatever to use NetScape on Windows 3.1). Likewise, Wozniak wanted to "own his own computer" so he built one. I don't think that's a small idea either. I guess you can say that it is one that most people wouldn't understand the utility of though.
  - bhaumik 9y ago
    Linus Torvald's first email re: Linux belongs here: > I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
    - chubot 9y ago
      Yeah that quote definitely crossed my mind. However I think the OP is confusing ideas vs. systems: The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work. That doesn't really make sense with respect to ideas. The real quote is about SYSTEMS, from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide-Large/dp/0961825170 https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide-Large/d... The system is the realization of the idea. You can have a big idea, but you can't implement it all at once. TBL had a big idea, which is necessarily a big system. So he grew it from a very small piece of code (HTTP 1.0 was ridiculously simple.) There was an unbroken chain from small system to big system. The misleading thing about Linux is that it IS IN FACT a big idea -- it's just not a technological idea. We already knew how to write monolithic kernels. But the real innovation is the software development process. The fact that thousands of programmers can ship a working kernel with little coordination is amazing. That Linus wrote git is not an accident; he's an expert in software collaboration and evolution. Linux is a universal hardware abstraction layer, which is an easy idea in theory, but extremely difficult in practice until Linus figured out how to make it work. So Linux is a big idea too, as well as a small system that grew into a big system. ----- This reminds me of Paul Graham's advice: http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html Let me conclude with some tactical advice. If you want to take on a problem as big as the ones I've discussed, don't make a direct frontal attack on it. Don't say, for example, that you're going to replace email. If you do that you raise too many expectations. Your employees and investors will constantly be asking "are we there yet?" and you'll have an army of haters waiting to see you fail. Just say you're building todo-list software. That sounds harmless. Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with deceptively small things. Want to dominate microcomputer software? Start by writing a Basic interpreter for a machine with a few thousand users. Want to make the universal web site? Start by building a site for Harvard undergrads to stalk one another. I think that's pretty much in line with what's said here. You can have a big idea, a big 10 year goal, but you have to break in into steps. Gates had an explicit goal of "a PC on every desk" and Zuckerberg had an explicit goal of "connecting the world" (at some point, not at the very beginning). But they necessarily started small.
feinschmeker 9y ago
A huge problem is Education. It's hard to tell which way the solution lies in, yet.
pkaye 9y ago
I have no idea what the big problems are but VCs are chasing a lot of stupid ideas. The one I can think of right now is Juicero. I can't believe even Google Ventures funded it! Really are people willing to spend $600 for a machine and $8 a pack of juice? What kind of market analysis did they do? And the founder had not engineering background. And they overdesigned the machine. How about something hand-cranked like a pasta press for 10% of the cost? You can even put a eco friendly twist to it.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  It's not what you know, it's who you know.

jacquesm 9y ago

> So what do you think are the big problems being worked on today which people are overlooking because the technology isn't as sexy as self-driving cars? Making computers disappear.

germinalphrase 9y ago
Which would be ... ubiquitous AR? What is the end vision for this idea?
- abecedarius 9y ago
  See Vinge's novel Rainbows End. It's a combo of the AR plus having sensors/effectors/networking embedded in all the stuff around you for computing to work with. The "internet of things" starts to go that way, but what I've heard of hasn't sounded that impressive. Seems like it needs to get way better at security and interoperability, though it's not my field.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Ubiquitous computing without proper security and interop is a non-starter. The present day internet of things to me looks mostly like companies that are in the 'goods' business that are desperately trying to get into the 'services' business because they would like themselves some slice of that recurring revenue.
    - abecedarius 9y ago
      Yes, I want to buy things that can talk only to my network, while apparently they want me to pay to host XYZcorp's botnet.
- danielharrison 9y ago
  Make someone rich, as is any idea.
samstave 9y ago
I totally disagree with this. 1. "computers" HAVE disappeared; AKA ubiquitous surveillance is already here. 2. I dont want to see a bunch of people flailing their arms. I dont want a new crop of "lip readers" who are looking at the body movements of others and intercepting their actions intentions (imaging ML/AI/CV applied to watching a crowd of people and IDing all the apps/interactions/intentions they are performing) 3. Organic Humanism will be a thing. Fuck technology - I literally want to walk into Yosemite and not have a single digital thread connecting me to the outside world. 4. Central control. "invisible computers" literally means that ALL power over human thought shall exist in the "cloud" -- where all control/tech/physicality is abstracted from any naive mind. 5. Education flounders; Try teaching some kids about the state of the internet in 20 years when they have never seen a computer in physicality. They have only interacted (unknowingly, ubiquitously, and without their will 100% of their entire little lives) -- entering a FaceGoog.gov datacenter would literally be like Neo waking up in the Matrix vat of human sludge. So -- as someone who was pushing for and played my tiny part in the creation of the state of things due to my awe of the imagined future of cyberpunk reality. FUCK THIS IDEA COMPLETELY and kill it with fire... I could go on...
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I could go on You could, but please don't because you take a one line comment, completely fail to understand it and its implications and then give a whole pile of wild exaggerations based on that misunderstanding.
  - samstave 9y ago
    Please expand. You take one line, attach some deeper meaning to it and then denigrate those who "misunderstand" a single phrase. Also, you attempt to make me look the fool by not understanding the simplistic genius of your comment. If it is so easy to get - then why didn't I get it? So, no. Your comment is BS - making computers invisible, if its such a deeper meaning that I missed -- explain. That's as infamous for you as the "you're holding it wrong" statement is for Jobs. :-P Thanks
    - 9y ago

ec109685 9y ago

What does the tidbit mean? That the success or failure of a VC / Investor during those times was whether you invested in Google?

nostrademons 9y ago

If I knew that, I'd a.) be a lot richer than I am and b.) wouldn't tell the Internet. I just feel that we're looking in the wrong places for the next big idea. The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work. (Gall's Law: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.")

chubot 9y ago
I'm sympathetic to the small idea thing (I wrote a long comment to your original reply). But that doesn't seem true in the case of the web and the PC. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee This project is experimental and of course comes without any warranty whatsoever. However, it could start a revolution in information access. - (19 August 1991), the announcement of the first WWW hypertext browser on the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.next.announce. TBL knew that the WWW would be "world wide". He explicitly designed it that way. So I would say the web is small TECHNOLOGY, but not a small idea. It was a huge idea. Although honestly, I don't think the tech was that small for the day either. GUIs + networking was not super easy in 1991. There were still a lot of unsolved problems (e.g. DOS wasn't even a multi-tasking OS, I remember you had to download WinSock or whatever to use NetScape on Windows 3.1). Likewise, Wozniak wanted to "own his own computer" so he built one. I don't think that's a small idea either. I guess you can say that it is one that most people wouldn't understand the utility of though.
- bhaumik 9y ago
  Linus Torvald's first email re: Linux belongs here: > I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
  - chubot 9y ago
    Yeah that quote definitely crossed my mind. However I think the OP is confusing ideas vs. systems: The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work. That doesn't really make sense with respect to ideas. The real quote is about SYSTEMS, from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide-Large/dp/0961825170 https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide-Large/d... The system is the realization of the idea. You can have a big idea, but you can't implement it all at once. TBL had a big idea, which is necessarily a big system. So he grew it from a very small piece of code (HTTP 1.0 was ridiculously simple.) There was an unbroken chain from small system to big system. The misleading thing about Linux is that it IS IN FACT a big idea -- it's just not a technological idea. We already knew how to write monolithic kernels. But the real innovation is the software development process. The fact that thousands of programmers can ship a working kernel with little coordination is amazing. That Linus wrote git is not an accident; he's an expert in software collaboration and evolution. Linux is a universal hardware abstraction layer, which is an easy idea in theory, but extremely difficult in practice until Linus figured out how to make it work. So Linux is a big idea too, as well as a small system that grew into a big system. ----- This reminds me of Paul Graham's advice: http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html Let me conclude with some tactical advice. If you want to take on a problem as big as the ones I've discussed, don't make a direct frontal attack on it. Don't say, for example, that you're going to replace email. If you do that you raise too many expectations. Your employees and investors will constantly be asking "are we there yet?" and you'll have an army of haters waiting to see you fail. Just say you're building todo-list software. That sounds harmless. Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with deceptively small things. Want to dominate microcomputer software? Start by writing a Basic interpreter for a machine with a few thousand users. Want to make the universal web site? Start by building a site for Harvard undergrads to stalk one another. I think that's pretty much in line with what's said here. You can have a big idea, a big 10 year goal, but you have to break in into steps. Gates had an explicit goal of "a PC on every desk" and Zuckerberg had an explicit goal of "connecting the world" (at some point, not at the very beginning). But they necessarily started small.

feinschmeker 9y ago

A huge problem is Education. It's hard to tell which way the solution lies in, yet.

pkaye 9y ago

I have no idea what the big problems are but VCs are chasing a lot of stupid ideas. The one I can think of right now is Juicero. I can't believe even Google Ventures funded it! Really are people willing to spend $600 for a machine and $8 a pack of juice? What kind of market analysis did they do? And the founder had not engineering background. And they overdesigned the machine. How about something hand-cranked like a pasta press for 10% of the cost? You can even put a eco friendly twist to it.

moron4hire 9y ago
It's not what you know, it's who you know.