3 ms·
The core problem of your argument is that you don't even bother to define what is a "huge problem". It seems to be 1) anything that isn't funded by VCs 2) huge
by osipov 18y ago
The core problem of your argument is that you don't even bother to define what is a "huge problem". It seems to be 1) anything that isn't funded by VCs 2) huge in the sense of taking a long time to solve. Or both.
Once you do commit to a concrete definition, why do you believe that VCs should be considered sources of funding for the problem? For example if LHC fits your definition of a huge problem, you may want to consider its funding model as an alternative.
- LPTS 18y agoOK. You are quite right about that definition. There has been an ongoing discussions over at Haque's HBP site about this for a couple months now, so I was operating under the definition that his discussions were operating under. Then I put it here, and it didn't make sense removed from context. Let me take a stab at it. It's like pornography, you know it when you see it. Not quite. Huge problems are those problems where everyone is doing things one way, and that way is stupid. For example, the way food is distributed is a huge problem, because it has inefficiencies that happen all over the world and are multiplied billions of times over. I'm not happy with that. I'll look back over the HBR discussions and find a better one. OK. Since his writing is so good, I will let him speak for himself. Here is the context for the way I was conceiving "big problem" http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/04/an_open_challenge_to_silicon_v.html http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/04/an_open_chall...