4 ms·

> Makes me wonder why they're not funding more large scale research - throw a few billion at carbon sequestration, maybe? Businesses need to ensure they can ma

> Makes me wonder why they're not funding more large scale research - throw a few billion at carbon sequestration, maybe? Businesses need to ensure they can make profit before throwing money at huge problems, otherwise they'll just lose money and go out of business. This goes double for problems which have no clear solution. Even if you technically know how to solve a problem, if that technique is not profitable then it's literally not worth solving. One example: Supersonic Commercial Travel. We have supersonic jets, and we have people who want to travel faster, so why isn't Boeing throwing billions of dollars into supersonic jets? Among other reasons (e.g. they are a nuisance), it's because it's not profitable yet.

icelancer 8y ago
>> Businesses need to ensure they can make profit before throwing money at huge problems, otherwise they'll just lose money and go out of business. Can you say this is true about Tesla and/or SpaceX? It doesn't particularly seem like Elon cared about those things all that much when he launched them.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  It doesn't need to be said for Musk, since a visionary entrepreneur is the exception, not the rule. Musk's choices can be explained away -- a smart domain expert like Musk probably has a better understanding of the risks and rewards in his domain of work than most other people. There are always exceptional people in the world who can not only imagine futures, but make them reality. Hiring a think tank to solve a problem is a brute force search; almost like a random walk in the solution space. That's a huge risk for someone with lots of money and no domain expertise, but perhaps less a risk for an Einstein who has relevant knowledge and skills. Lots of solutions were found in the proverbial garage, and perhaps would have never been the product of a billion dollars and the best MIT grads you could hire. Nonetheless, spontaneity is, by definition, not something you can really throw money at and expect to happen. Even a trillion dollars will not help you find the next Einstein who can solve the exact problem you are working on.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Well, I think I have to disagree with a couple of points here. First, Musk is not a domain expert in building rockets (by no means deminishing SpaceX technical achievements) nor in building cars (which is showing itself clearly as of late). Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge. SpaceX itself is not a real moon shot (figuratively speeking, literally they are) but rather catching up with 60s and 70s space tech. And electrical cars have been around since the 1900s, so again nothing resembling a moon shot. Automotive mass production on the other hand is a very well understood problem space, one Tesla failed exploit so far in any meaningful way so far.
    - anonytrary 8y ago
      My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjectives I used to describe Musk are not relevant here. > Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge "Easy to solve" means something different for a scientist, engineer and businessman. Something which can be theoretically or technically solved may not be practically solved (the supersonic commercial jet example I mentioned earlier). I agree with you that most of the time, it's pretty clear whether or not something will require new science or can be built with existing knowledge, and most business are in the business of doing the latter. I would add that new science is capable of turning impractical solutions into practical ones, and a multi-billion dollar business can spend easily spend unpredictable amounts of money trying to do so -- which makes it a very risky investment.
      - hef19898 8y ago
        Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.
- tobyjsullivan 8y ago
  Yes, you can. There were existing high-value ($100B/$1T+) markets before either of those companies started. Focussing on SpaceX specifically, Musk has always been clear that his business goal was to provide space transport at 10% the current cost. There's a story that he'd worked out (based on his existing rocket-building knowledge) that it seemed entirely practical to build a rocket for far less than going rate - on a plane while flying back from Russia. He had a business case before he spent his first dollar. There's obviously remaining uncertainty but it would be foolish to start a project without some idea of how you'd profit.
m_mueller 8y ago
Imagine you’re Google and you have a tech ready & demonstrated to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, say, with 30% the binding energy required that’s gained by burning fossil fuels to CO2. You keep innovating and stay ahead of the competition, using 5% of profits or such. Now go 20y into the future and USGov starts waking up to the mess they’ve creates. Miami is about to sink, Hurricanes are eating deep into their budget and Methane released from Sibirian traps is making it worse every year. The solar cycle is almost unrecognizable, every year is now El-Nino. China has ther own sequestration tech going and is net carbon negative, Europe is trying but failing, and all the world is screaming at the US to stop fucking around and do something. Who do you think they’ll throw all their money at? This kinda tech would be their license to print money. A nice percentage of everyone’s carbon tax.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, an alternative explanation is that your premise is wrong. No scientist believes that global warming is as bad as you are making it seem. Yes, it will cause trillions of dollars in damages over the next century or so, as sea levels go up by a couple feet. But that is hardly the end of the world, as you are making it seem. For example, Miami is not predicted to disappear, in a mere 20 years, as you imply. The actual negative effects of global warming are closer to being within an order of magnitude of badness to an Iraq war, in a century, than is it to being an extinction event.
  - konschubert 8y ago
    I read recently that 6 degree warning means that agriculture won't be possible any longer outside the polar circles. I'd call that fairly impactful.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Well, the IPCC doesn't think that, and also doesn't believe that we are going to get to 6 degrees C of warming. The predictions that I follow are not the pop doomsday predictions made on the internet. It is instead the predictions made by the official government experts on climate change. Also, all of this is definitely not predicted to happen within 20 years. actually bad effects are predicted more like 200 years+ from now. Which is plenty of time, if you just look at how much the human race has accomplished in the previous 200 years.

icelancer 8y ago

>> Businesses need to ensure they can make profit before throwing money at huge problems, otherwise they'll just lose money and go out of business. Can you say this is true about Tesla and/or SpaceX? It doesn't particularly seem like Elon cared about those things all that much when he launched them.

anonytrary 8y ago
It doesn't need to be said for Musk, since a visionary entrepreneur is the exception, not the rule. Musk's choices can be explained away -- a smart domain expert like Musk probably has a better understanding of the risks and rewards in his domain of work than most other people. There are always exceptional people in the world who can not only imagine futures, but make them reality. Hiring a think tank to solve a problem is a brute force search; almost like a random walk in the solution space. That's a huge risk for someone with lots of money and no domain expertise, but perhaps less a risk for an Einstein who has relevant knowledge and skills. Lots of solutions were found in the proverbial garage, and perhaps would have never been the product of a billion dollars and the best MIT grads you could hire. Nonetheless, spontaneity is, by definition, not something you can really throw money at and expect to happen. Even a trillion dollars will not help you find the next Einstein who can solve the exact problem you are working on.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Well, I think I have to disagree with a couple of points here. First, Musk is not a domain expert in building rockets (by no means deminishing SpaceX technical achievements) nor in building cars (which is showing itself clearly as of late). Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge. SpaceX itself is not a real moon shot (figuratively speeking, literally they are) but rather catching up with 60s and 70s space tech. And electrical cars have been around since the 1900s, so again nothing resembling a moon shot. Automotive mass production on the other hand is a very well understood problem space, one Tesla failed exploit so far in any meaningful way so far.
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjectives I used to describe Musk are not relevant here. > Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge "Easy to solve" means something different for a scientist, engineer and businessman. Something which can be theoretically or technically solved may not be practically solved (the supersonic commercial jet example I mentioned earlier). I agree with you that most of the time, it's pretty clear whether or not something will require new science or can be built with existing knowledge, and most business are in the business of doing the latter. I would add that new science is capable of turning impractical solutions into practical ones, and a multi-billion dollar business can spend easily spend unpredictable amounts of money trying to do so -- which makes it a very risky investment.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.
tobyjsullivan 8y ago
Yes, you can. There were existing high-value ($100B/$1T+) markets before either of those companies started. Focussing on SpaceX specifically, Musk has always been clear that his business goal was to provide space transport at 10% the current cost. There's a story that he'd worked out (based on his existing rocket-building knowledge) that it seemed entirely practical to build a rocket for far less than going rate - on a plane while flying back from Russia. He had a business case before he spent his first dollar. There's obviously remaining uncertainty but it would be foolish to start a project without some idea of how you'd profit.

m_mueller 8y ago

Imagine you’re Google and you have a tech ready & demonstrated to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, say, with 30% the binding energy required that’s gained by burning fossil fuels to CO2. You keep innovating and stay ahead of the competition, using 5% of profits or such. Now go 20y into the future and USGov starts waking up to the mess they’ve creates. Miami is about to sink, Hurricanes are eating deep into their budget and Methane released from Sibirian traps is making it worse every year. The solar cycle is almost unrecognizable, every year is now El-Nino. China has ther own sequestration tech going and is net carbon negative, Europe is trying but failing, and all the world is screaming at the US to stop fucking around and do something. Who do you think they’ll throw all their money at? This kinda tech would be their license to print money. A nice percentage of everyone’s carbon tax.

stale2002 8y ago
Well, an alternative explanation is that your premise is wrong. No scientist believes that global warming is as bad as you are making it seem. Yes, it will cause trillions of dollars in damages over the next century or so, as sea levels go up by a couple feet. But that is hardly the end of the world, as you are making it seem. For example, Miami is not predicted to disappear, in a mere 20 years, as you imply. The actual negative effects of global warming are closer to being within an order of magnitude of badness to an Iraq war, in a century, than is it to being an extinction event.
- konschubert 8y ago
  I read recently that 6 degree warning means that agriculture won't be possible any longer outside the polar circles. I'd call that fairly impactful.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Well, the IPCC doesn't think that, and also doesn't believe that we are going to get to 6 degrees C of warming. The predictions that I follow are not the pop doomsday predictions made on the internet. It is instead the predictions made by the official government experts on climate change. Also, all of this is definitely not predicted to happen within 20 years. actually bad effects are predicted more like 200 years+ from now. Which is plenty of time, if you just look at how much the human race has accomplished in the previous 200 years.