4 ms·

On the other hand, Finland punches massively above its weight when it comes to tech in general - while the US, being the world's largest economy, punches at its

On the other hand, Finland punches massively above its weight when it comes to tech in general - while the US, being the world's largest economy, punches at its weight. That would indicate the generally egalitarian Finish approach is better than the darwinian US approach. My feeling is that while the US is phenomenally good at delivering an excellent education to a small set of extremely talented people, I get the feeling that these people go on to not have enough free time to do really interesting work, and rather end up devoting their lives to industry, which is predominantly very conservative[1]. [1]: Obviously, I think this is offset by the fact that US industry is less conservative and more interested in abstract research than it is in most other countries, so you do get really cool research being done. But I think generally speaking, this model isn't as effective as just letting most people in society do more of the stuff that interests them, and less of the stuff that doesn't.

hoaw 8y ago
The whole idea that a country like Finland could create and maintain talent without a domestic market is completely silly, if not entirely unsupported. Which is also true for much of the US. Arguably even the Soviet Union couldn't. And if you actually had to choose between "top talent" and "mainstream appeal" the latter has orders of magnitude better returns. A larger part of the modern economy is built on that fact, including much of Silicon Valley. If you could just invest in talent many countries would pass the US in no time. But unsurprisingly those investments mostly yield handshakes and cocktail parties.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I think Silicon Valley is quite a good refutation of your point, actually -- it was almost entirely founded on DARPA investing in talent. After all, they funded everything from the first ICs to Chomsky. I don't think mainstream appeal is irrelevant. I just think that if you fund scientists and technologists to do the work they find interesting, they'll produce something more fundamentally interesting and generally useful than if you fund them to make great products. Great products, after all, include things like Minecraft, pet rocks, and fidget spinners.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> I get the feeling that these people go on to not have enough free time to do really interesting work ... I get the feeling that these people go on to enjoy the benefits of their education but then fail to return a suitable dividend to the rest of society.

hoaw 8y ago

The whole idea that a country like Finland could create and maintain talent without a domestic market is completely silly, if not entirely unsupported. Which is also true for much of the US. Arguably even the Soviet Union couldn't. And if you actually had to choose between "top talent" and "mainstream appeal" the latter has orders of magnitude better returns. A larger part of the modern economy is built on that fact, including much of Silicon Valley. If you could just invest in talent many countries would pass the US in no time. But unsurprisingly those investments mostly yield handshakes and cocktail parties.

pasabagi 8y ago
I think Silicon Valley is quite a good refutation of your point, actually -- it was almost entirely founded on DARPA investing in talent. After all, they funded everything from the first ICs to Chomsky. I don't think mainstream appeal is irrelevant. I just think that if you fund scientists and technologists to do the work they find interesting, they'll produce something more fundamentally interesting and generally useful than if you fund them to make great products. Great products, after all, include things like Minecraft, pet rocks, and fidget spinners.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> I get the feeling that these people go on to not have enough free time to do really interesting work ... I get the feeling that these people go on to enjoy the benefits of their education but then fail to return a suitable dividend to the rest of society.