4 ms·

>I find this essay to be extremely frustrating, and a good example of the attitude I've personally witnessed Andreessen have in the few interactions I've had wi

by treis 7y ago

>I find this essay to be extremely frustrating, and a good example of the attitude I've personally witnessed Andreessen have in the few interactions I've had with him directly. It's like it was written to be the perfect example of SV myopia for the rest of the world. Some examples: >Even private universities like Harvard are lavished with public funding; why can’t 100,000 or 1 million students a year attend Harvard? Because the main purpose of Harvard and other elite schools like it is to pick out the best ~18 year olds and set them on the course to be leaders in business, government, law, and other areas. Harvard isn't Harvard because they're better at education. Harvard is Harvard because they get the pick of the litter. Extending their enrollment to a million doesn't mean we get a million more elites. The funny thing is that we basically do have the education system he asks for in some places. For example, half of medical students attend lectures rarely or never instead opting for online resources. But they still plunk down 100k for those two years because the knowledge is worthless without the credential. (And years 1/2 are the gate way to the clinical education in years 3/4 that must happen in person). Go look at the a16z team. How many of them don't have a Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/et al type pedigree? So to answer his own question, people like him are the reason why 1 million students a year can't attend those types of places. Otherwise, their graduates wouldn't be as attractive to people like him. >Why aren’t we building Elon Musk’s “alien dreadnoughts” — giant, gleaming, state of the art factories producing every conceivable kind of product, at the highest possible quality and lowest possible cost — all throughout our country Because there's no magic factory you can build to make every conceivable product cheaply. Obviously we don't do it because it's cheaper/more efficient to produce stuff in single purpose factories. Contrary to his argument, we wouldn't get richer by manufacturing more stuff. We'd get poorer. >You see it in transportation. Where are the supersonic aircraft? Where are the millions of delivery drones? Where are the high speed trains, the soaring monorails, the hyperloops, and yes, the flying cars? Because none of this stuff is economically or physically practical. He seems to want us to live in a science fiction fantasy world.

pascalxus 7y ago
>>You see it in transportation. Where are the supersonic aircraft? Where are the millions of delivery drones? Where are the high speed trains, the soaring monorails, the hyperloops, and yes, the flying cars? >Because none of this stuff is economically or physically practical. He seems to want us to live in a science fiction fantasy world. I'm pretty sure most of that stuff is highly illegal. Make things illegal, and they don't happen. It's that simple. I mean, just look at uber: it's just a glorified taxi company that was able to circumvent the taxi monopoly medallion system (yet, another system that made competition illegal). And, it took a huge army of lobbyists just to make that legal. Such a small innovation requires so much lobbying, it doesn't give hope for any other kind of innovation. There was a start up in the bay area: all they wanted to do was put a few more buses on the street. It was rejected very quickly and made illegal. Turns out people would rather get buses off the road with all the pollution and traffic that would have saved, rather than allow workers to get to work a little easier.
- jbkiv 7y ago
  Thks, could not agree more. More Uber = more pollution and unbearable traffic. Slap a 50% tax on Uber and use that money for free public transportation. In a recession maybe we'll see more people getting on an electric bus/subway. And our lungs will be feel better.
- adamsea 7y ago
  > Make things illegal, and they don't happen. Well, as you said yourself, Uber happened. Why? Because it's investors saw a chance to make a huge profit, and so they _wanted_ to invest in that army of lobbyists. However those same investors do not seem so excited to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to employment security, healthcare, etc, otherwise they would have _wanted_ Uber to have its drivers be employees, w/all the legal responsibilities entailed.
- Klinky 7y ago
  Supersonic flight is inefficient and noisy. Drones are noisy, a hazard, and significantly more limited due to lithium density than electric cars. High-speed rail is not illegal, but requires huge capital. Uber may not be economically viable, and there are serious concerns about middle-men marketplace corps socializing the liability, benefits, and wage instability costs the gig economy brings with it.
  - yellow_postit 7y ago
    Cars are noisy, a hazard, and in some ways significantly more limited than horses. I actually agree with all your points but also recognize there’s a strong prior bias toward what “I know” works or doesn’t today that can preclude the future possibilities.
    - scottLobster 7y ago
      And cars were not economically viable for the masses for most of their early development. It took decades of technological advancements to produce the distant ancestor of the modern mass-market auto-manufacturing machine. As for drones and supersonic aircraft, we're going to need much better batteries for the former and far more efficient engines for the latter to them to be more viable than present alternatives. That's not a "what I know bias", it's in hard math and numbers. It's like how most ships in popular sci-fi are these futuristic, oblong shapes with wondrous curves, when in fact a more realistic approach would be using rectangles for everything but a few niche applications. For anything that humans are going to walk around in/actively use rectangular structures are simply far more efficient. It was true 10,000 years ago, it'll be true 10,000 years from now assuming we're not living in Musk's simulation.
e12e 7y ago
>> You see it in transportation. (...) Where are the high speed trains > none of this stuff is economically or physically practical. One of those things are not like the others.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting the trains are not economically practical? China, India, Europe and the UK all would like to have a word with you.
  - e12e 7y ago
    No, the opposite. Gp mentions fast trains in the same breath as flying cars and supersonic passenger planes.
  - tomp 7y ago
    All of those places are much smaller and/or densely populated than the US.
zelly 7y ago
> Because the main purpose of Harvard and other elite schools like it is to pick out the best ~18 year olds and set them on the course to be leaders in business, government, law, and other areas. Harvard isn't Harvard because they're better at education. Harvard is Harvard because they get the pick of the litter. Extending their enrollment to a million doesn't mean we get a million more elites. It doesn't even do that. Harvard doesn't pick out the brightest 18 year olds to become future leaders. It picks out the most competitive kids who care about going to a place like Harvard. If all you wanted to do was prove your intelligence, an IQ test is much cheaper and quicker.
- tomp 7y ago
  > If all you wanted to do was prove your intelligence, an IQ test is much cheaper and quicker. Also illegal to consider when hiring, hence why companies use educational attainment as a proxy and outsource IQ tests (SATs) to universities.

by treis 7y ago

pascalxus 7y ago

>>You see it in transportation. Where are the supersonic aircraft? Where are the millions of delivery drones? Where are the high speed trains, the soaring monorails, the hyperloops, and yes, the flying cars? >Because none of this stuff is economically or physically practical. He seems to want us to live in a science fiction fantasy world. I'm pretty sure most of that stuff is highly illegal. Make things illegal, and they don't happen. It's that simple. I mean, just look at uber: it's just a glorified taxi company that was able to circumvent the taxi monopoly medallion system (yet, another system that made competition illegal). And, it took a huge army of lobbyists just to make that legal. Such a small innovation requires so much lobbying, it doesn't give hope for any other kind of innovation. There was a start up in the bay area: all they wanted to do was put a few more buses on the street. It was rejected very quickly and made illegal. Turns out people would rather get buses off the road with all the pollution and traffic that would have saved, rather than allow workers to get to work a little easier.

jbkiv 7y ago
Thks, could not agree more. More Uber = more pollution and unbearable traffic. Slap a 50% tax on Uber and use that money for free public transportation. In a recession maybe we'll see more people getting on an electric bus/subway. And our lungs will be feel better.
adamsea 7y ago
> Make things illegal, and they don't happen. Well, as you said yourself, Uber happened. Why? Because it's investors saw a chance to make a huge profit, and so they _wanted_ to invest in that army of lobbyists. However those same investors do not seem so excited to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to employment security, healthcare, etc, otherwise they would have _wanted_ Uber to have its drivers be employees, w/all the legal responsibilities entailed.
Klinky 7y ago
Supersonic flight is inefficient and noisy. Drones are noisy, a hazard, and significantly more limited due to lithium density than electric cars. High-speed rail is not illegal, but requires huge capital. Uber may not be economically viable, and there are serious concerns about middle-men marketplace corps socializing the liability, benefits, and wage instability costs the gig economy brings with it.
- yellow_postit 7y ago
  Cars are noisy, a hazard, and in some ways significantly more limited than horses. I actually agree with all your points but also recognize there’s a strong prior bias toward what “I know” works or doesn’t today that can preclude the future possibilities.
  - scottLobster 7y ago
    And cars were not economically viable for the masses for most of their early development. It took decades of technological advancements to produce the distant ancestor of the modern mass-market auto-manufacturing machine. As for drones and supersonic aircraft, we're going to need much better batteries for the former and far more efficient engines for the latter to them to be more viable than present alternatives. That's not a "what I know bias", it's in hard math and numbers. It's like how most ships in popular sci-fi are these futuristic, oblong shapes with wondrous curves, when in fact a more realistic approach would be using rectangles for everything but a few niche applications. For anything that humans are going to walk around in/actively use rectangular structures are simply far more efficient. It was true 10,000 years ago, it'll be true 10,000 years from now assuming we're not living in Musk's simulation.

e12e 7y ago

>> You see it in transportation. (...) Where are the high speed trains > none of this stuff is economically or physically practical. One of those things are not like the others.

KirinDave 7y ago
Are you seriously suggesting the trains are not economically practical? China, India, Europe and the UK all would like to have a word with you.
- e12e 7y ago
  No, the opposite. Gp mentions fast trains in the same breath as flying cars and supersonic passenger planes.
- tomp 7y ago
  All of those places are much smaller and/or densely populated than the US.

zelly 7y ago

> Because the main purpose of Harvard and other elite schools like it is to pick out the best ~18 year olds and set them on the course to be leaders in business, government, law, and other areas. Harvard isn't Harvard because they're better at education. Harvard is Harvard because they get the pick of the litter. Extending their enrollment to a million doesn't mean we get a million more elites. It doesn't even do that. Harvard doesn't pick out the brightest 18 year olds to become future leaders. It picks out the most competitive kids who care about going to a place like Harvard. If all you wanted to do was prove your intelligence, an IQ test is much cheaper and quicker.

tomp 7y ago
> If all you wanted to do was prove your intelligence, an IQ test is much cheaper and quicker. Also illegal to consider when hiring, hence why companies use educational attainment as a proxy and outsource IQ tests (SATs) to universities.