4 ms·

I actually think this sounds like a dope project and I would love for it to succeed. BUT, come on folks, refugees are not your fucking PR opportunity. I can't

I actually think this sounds like a dope project and I would love for it to succeed. BUT, come on folks, refugees are not your fucking PR opportunity. I can't imagine how insulting it must be to need food, shelter, and a source of income, and some clueless techbro from across the globe sends you a malfunctioning Raspberry Pi grow tent. How disconnected from reality does one have to be to think this is a good idea.

StudentStuff 7y ago
These people have no ethics, if it furthers their narrative they will spin any tangentially relevant story. Unlike Engineering, there is no Board of Engineers to hold you (or your company) to account for lying about the capabilities of your core product or whether its actually working for the vulnerable people used in a company's marketing :c
web007 7y ago
The object is a good idea. The PR and selling around it isn't. Everything in the story belies the main claims of the article, and that's the only problem I see - the difference between hustle and reality. This is exactly the ethos of move fast and break things that will make the right things happen. They shipped to real customers in real environments. They used technology to address problems. They iterated on the design. All just like you're supposed to do for any successful product. Where they screwed up is claiming to "make the world a better place" before they really did it. They're still in product-market fit phase, not techbros save the world phase.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  The step you left out is "pretend the existing industry doesn't exist and ignore hard-earned folk knowledge". A lot of these supposedly revolutionary ideas are wasting money learning things that e.g. agriculture or finance or whatever industry figured out ages ago.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > This is exactly the ethos of move fast and break things that will make the right things happen. They shipped to real customers in real environments. Or, they wasted fuel, energy, manpower and hopes. > They used technology to address problems. Except they didn't, beyond noticing the problem exists. > They iterated on the design. Everyone does that. > All just like you're supposed to do for any successful product. The first rule for a successful product is, or at least should be, that it does something useful. The second, that it does it economically in context of available alternatives. "Make the world a better place" is cringe-inducing, but reducing the message slightly is still bullshit marketing. For me, this already ruined any trust I had in the past in MIT ML, TED talks, and countless of startups "saving the world", "improving lives", etc. (Also, a thing I learned from observation: if you want to improve the world, you probably don't want to take VC money.)
whymauri 7y ago
Not even the first time the Media Lab does this. See: One Laptop Per Child.
- hinkley 7y ago
  I still want the lenticular display to be a thing. We know categorically that hand cranks do not work, although I think Thad Starner (also from Media Lab) had already proven that when the project started. They were trying to make them homogenous, when probably a pair or trio of devices would have worked better and had higher survivability. I hope someone more sober tries again.
kbrosnan 7y ago
The food computer idea was one that industry had working a decade before under the name growth chambers. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1171895683449856003 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117189568344985600... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20chambers https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20...
- api 7y ago
  Ahh, but those things didn't have the MIT name associated with them. I really can't stand the elite university system. It's not that these schools are bad, just that many others are also good but don't have the brand.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Are the stories about how awesome places like MIT were in the past wrong, or is it just that these days they're riding on the reputation earned in the 70s?
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Neither. MIT was and is awesome. That the Media Lab had a lot of people gifted with PR skills does not detract from the outsized contribution MIT faculty and graduates make in terms of publications, research or economic impact.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Ah, OK. My contact surface with MIT is through a) various old lectures of theirs I watched, and b) the "hot stuff" that I read about (which I guess is mostly from the Media Lab). The former was awesome, the latter not so much.
- whyenot 7y ago
  That tweet is snarky, but it's also wrong. Growth chambers have indeed been commercially available for over 50 years, but a "food computer" appears to be a little different, because it also includes the plumbing and reservoirs for growing plants hydroponically.
madengr 7y ago
Dope is about the only useful thing it can grow.
snagglegaggle 7y ago
China has some program providing greenhouse monitoring to its poorer citizens, but it does a lot more than this.
jrochkind1 7y ago
Even worse, the techbro is getting paid a FINE salary by pimping you, and you don't get shit. It's absolutely disgusting to make a living for yourself by pretending to help refugees and lying about it.
- hurrdurr2 7y ago
  This might sound hyperbolic but I'm almost getting Theranos vibes from reading this story. Using refugees to push your nonfunctinal product is slimey to say the least.

StudentStuff 7y ago

These people have no ethics, if it furthers their narrative they will spin any tangentially relevant story. Unlike Engineering, there is no Board of Engineers to hold you (or your company) to account for lying about the capabilities of your core product or whether its actually working for the vulnerable people used in a company's marketing :c

web007 7y ago

The object is a good idea. The PR and selling around it isn't. Everything in the story belies the main claims of the article, and that's the only problem I see - the difference between hustle and reality. This is exactly the ethos of move fast and break things that will make the right things happen. They shipped to real customers in real environments. They used technology to address problems. They iterated on the design. All just like you're supposed to do for any successful product. Where they screwed up is claiming to "make the world a better place" before they really did it. They're still in product-market fit phase, not techbros save the world phase.

nitrogen 7y ago
The step you left out is "pretend the existing industry doesn't exist and ignore hard-earned folk knowledge". A lot of these supposedly revolutionary ideas are wasting money learning things that e.g. agriculture or finance or whatever industry figured out ages ago.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> This is exactly the ethos of move fast and break things that will make the right things happen. They shipped to real customers in real environments. Or, they wasted fuel, energy, manpower and hopes. > They used technology to address problems. Except they didn't, beyond noticing the problem exists. > They iterated on the design. Everyone does that. > All just like you're supposed to do for any successful product. The first rule for a successful product is, or at least should be, that it does something useful. The second, that it does it economically in context of available alternatives. "Make the world a better place" is cringe-inducing, but reducing the message slightly is still bullshit marketing. For me, this already ruined any trust I had in the past in MIT ML, TED talks, and countless of startups "saving the world", "improving lives", etc. (Also, a thing I learned from observation: if you want to improve the world, you probably don't want to take VC money.)

whymauri 7y ago

Not even the first time the Media Lab does this. See: One Laptop Per Child.

hinkley 7y ago
I still want the lenticular display to be a thing. We know categorically that hand cranks do not work, although I think Thad Starner (also from Media Lab) had already proven that when the project started. They were trying to make them homogenous, when probably a pair or trio of devices would have worked better and had higher survivability. I hope someone more sober tries again.

kbrosnan 7y ago

The food computer idea was one that industry had working a decade before under the name growth chambers. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1171895683449856003 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117189568344985600... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20chambers https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20...

api 7y ago
Ahh, but those things didn't have the MIT name associated with them. I really can't stand the elite university system. It's not that these schools are bad, just that many others are also good but don't have the brand.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Are the stories about how awesome places like MIT were in the past wrong, or is it just that these days they're riding on the reputation earned in the 70s?
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Neither. MIT was and is awesome. That the Media Lab had a lot of people gifted with PR skills does not detract from the outsized contribution MIT faculty and graduates make in terms of publications, research or economic impact.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Ah, OK. My contact surface with MIT is through a) various old lectures of theirs I watched, and b) the "hot stuff" that I read about (which I guess is mostly from the Media Lab). The former was awesome, the latter not so much.
whyenot 7y ago
That tweet is snarky, but it's also wrong. Growth chambers have indeed been commercially available for over 50 years, but a "food computer" appears to be a little different, because it also includes the plumbing and reservoirs for growing plants hydroponically.

madengr 7y ago

Dope is about the only useful thing it can grow.

snagglegaggle 7y ago

China has some program providing greenhouse monitoring to its poorer citizens, but it does a lot more than this.

jrochkind1 7y ago

Even worse, the techbro is getting paid a FINE salary by pimping you, and you don't get shit. It's absolutely disgusting to make a living for yourself by pretending to help refugees and lying about it.

hurrdurr2 7y ago
This might sound hyperbolic but I'm almost getting Theranos vibes from reading this story. Using refugees to push your nonfunctinal product is slimey to say the least.