5 ms·

[R]emote exchanges of ideas are no substitute for the elemental human process of face-to-face communication. Innovators don’t do their work in isolation; they s

[R]emote exchanges of ideas are no substitute for the elemental human process of face-to-face communication. Innovators don’t do their work in isolation; they stimulate one another. Historically, many have. And today, when you can ping almost anyone in the world, it's not an obstacle. Not to mention, most big cities have a research university (if not multiple). Nobody is lacking for input. The claim about "elemental" processes isn't based on anything concrete. I work in multiple remote teams and it's never been an issue. We get more work done than if we had to see each other every day. That's hardly an endorsement for SV alone unless SV has all the talent in the world (it doesn't). I think your post and some of the other posts advocating for SV have knowingly or not accepted a belief about how things work, but they are essentially mythologies. Some work as loners, some work in groups. The biggest mythology of all is that it takes hundreds of millions in funding and unethical behavior to build cool stuff - it doesn't. That seems to be the SV way, many of us don't want that.

needs_a_bot 9y ago
I think you're correct. I also work on a remote team, and found that I have to make the effort to go out to meetups or connect to a community in some way to get the best ideas. I think, maybe, there is less effort involved in connecting to a community if the community is also very local and very large (like it is in SV)? I don't really know.
bobthepanda 9y ago
Those historical loner inventors were inventing much simpler things than we work on today. Every city with a university has a baseline amount of research, sure, but at some point a critical mass is more useful. Agreed on capital - all that VC money slushing around is more akin to chasing the next big thing rather than fixing real world problems. It's just that tech's reliance on unconventional methods of funding makes SV startups more prominent than startups in other industries.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Were they? Individuals are more than capable of learning linear algebra, web frameworks, or any given hot tech in SV. Those historical loners had the massive disadvantage of not having reams of material detailing it and in some cases didn't have modern science because they invented it. There's almost nothing going on in SV that actually requires large teams or funding, that's just how things are done. Even if individuals have disadvantages v groups, those disadvantages aren't obvious when the phds and top of the class people at Google are building incompatible chat apps (what do they have, 4?) and those at Facebook are forgetting to renew security certs so that VR headsets don't stop working. There's a massive amount of inefficiency there, and at times mediocrity, and that's possible when everyone can pass the buck. It's not nuclear fusion. Surely the people at those companies as individuals are capable of producing much more than that?
  - wpietri 9y ago
    You seem to be ignoring the gap between "large teams" and individuals. The sweet spot for a lot of tech innovation is single, modestly-sized teams. Individuals working alone, though, are very rarely successful. There are just too many skills for one person to have, and a solo founder loses the advantage of different perspectives clashing and collaborating. Unsurprisingly, investors are very reluctant to fund both solo founders and large teams. Seed money to support innovative work ends up mostly going to groups of 2-5 people.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      I agree with you, but we just weren't discussing it. My main point is it is possible for individuals to do great things. The gap between that and 75,000 person companies is not just huge, it's massive. Honestly, what investors will or won't fund isn't that interesting to me because it seems to be root of lots of short sightedness. Investors have concerns antithetical (in many cases) to building great stuff. My belief is the market's reliance on investors has biased what is or isn't possible. If so many people weren't concerned about what they would fund, we'd probably see more solo founders and we'd probably see more success there. With investor money around, there's less reason to do that, unless you are a masochist. But yeah, most projects aren't single person, and groups have advantages even if they can be.

needs_a_bot 9y ago

I think you're correct. I also work on a remote team, and found that I have to make the effort to go out to meetups or connect to a community in some way to get the best ideas. I think, maybe, there is less effort involved in connecting to a community if the community is also very local and very large (like it is in SV)? I don't really know.

bobthepanda 9y ago

Those historical loner inventors were inventing much simpler things than we work on today. Every city with a university has a baseline amount of research, sure, but at some point a critical mass is more useful. Agreed on capital - all that VC money slushing around is more akin to chasing the next big thing rather than fixing real world problems. It's just that tech's reliance on unconventional methods of funding makes SV startups more prominent than startups in other industries.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Were they? Individuals are more than capable of learning linear algebra, web frameworks, or any given hot tech in SV. Those historical loners had the massive disadvantage of not having reams of material detailing it and in some cases didn't have modern science because they invented it. There's almost nothing going on in SV that actually requires large teams or funding, that's just how things are done. Even if individuals have disadvantages v groups, those disadvantages aren't obvious when the phds and top of the class people at Google are building incompatible chat apps (what do they have, 4?) and those at Facebook are forgetting to renew security certs so that VR headsets don't stop working. There's a massive amount of inefficiency there, and at times mediocrity, and that's possible when everyone can pass the buck. It's not nuclear fusion. Surely the people at those companies as individuals are capable of producing much more than that?
- wpietri 9y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the gap between "large teams" and individuals. The sweet spot for a lot of tech innovation is single, modestly-sized teams. Individuals working alone, though, are very rarely successful. There are just too many skills for one person to have, and a solo founder loses the advantage of different perspectives clashing and collaborating. Unsurprisingly, investors are very reluctant to fund both solo founders and large teams. Seed money to support innovative work ends up mostly going to groups of 2-5 people.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    I agree with you, but we just weren't discussing it. My main point is it is possible for individuals to do great things. The gap between that and 75,000 person companies is not just huge, it's massive. Honestly, what investors will or won't fund isn't that interesting to me because it seems to be root of lots of short sightedness. Investors have concerns antithetical (in many cases) to building great stuff. My belief is the market's reliance on investors has biased what is or isn't possible. If so many people weren't concerned about what they would fund, we'd probably see more solo founders and we'd probably see more success there. With investor money around, there's less reason to do that, unless you are a masochist. But yeah, most projects aren't single person, and groups have advantages even if they can be.