5 ms·

Okay, I'll bite at this flame bait: First, sorry to be 'sexist', but the pattern is far too strong to ignore: For some reason, maybe part of some of the old t

Okay, I'll bite at this flame bait: First, sorry to be 'sexist', but the pattern is far too strong to ignore: For some reason, maybe part of some of the old teachings and/or attitudes of the Roman Catholic church, heavily in Western culture women are supposed to want to dedicate their lives to 'saving the world'. A belief is that, if they dedicate their lives to saving the world, then the world will be obligated to save them and will. Indeed, it is common for such a woman to be 'married' more strongly to their church or saving the world than to their actual husband. That is, she is married to her husband but 'commits adultery' with her church or the whales. Also, the women are supposed to regard money as something they are supposed not to be interested in. Indeed, a belief is that if they do have have money, then they will no longer deserve to be cared for by the world and, thus, will have a big net loss. In addition, there is a belief that any woman who does anything that results in making money is somehow doing something immoral and, thus, causing her, again, no longer deserving to be cared for by the world. If the above points seem absurd to you, then I congratulate you on hearing these points finally now instead of later. I hate to say this, but basically on these points I'm standing on rock solid ground. Believe me, I came to understand these points only very slowly and reluctantly and at enormous cost. Let's not go into all it cost. But, I can tell you, it's far too common for such a woman, with a loving husband, a house, three small children, busy at home, in a job, and at church, to attend a lecture on some need on the other side of the planet and, then, to give up everything to rush to the other side of the planet to address the need. One women I know even wrote a book about her effort along these lines, and I could, but won't, give you the author and title of the book. I kid you not: A LOT of Western women are out to 'save the' world, whales, environment, polar bears, kitty cats, puppy dogs, poor people in countries X, Y, Z (mostly NOT their own countries), etc. E.g., even the movies understand as in the remark in the second 'Jurassic Park' movie: "80% women, Greenpeace". So, she's out to save the world and is upset because SV is not. Okay, now lets set aside her point about saving the world. I'd make another point about 'finance': Yes, we would value a company based on 'discounted future cash flows'. But we nearly never have any way to know about cash flows very far into the future. So, net, a lot of financial evaluation is based on just the latest data, adjusted for 'variance'. Are the short term traders making a mistake? They are watching many times a second and will sell at the first evidence of a change in the status of the company and, thus, don't get caught when the price falls. If the cash flow indeed lasts, then the short term traders will again be doing the right things. VCs and their entrepreneurs can't sell in a fraction of a second, but, still, a short term horizon for evaluation seems to be ground into pricing in finance. So, that she is concerned about short term pricing is nearly inevitable. Next, that there are clones for GroupOn is not an example of something silly about SV: Instead, GroupOn is quite obviously vulnerable to a different clone in each of Peoria, Paducah, and Pleasantville. Indeed, a clone in Peoria might have better connections with the businesses in Peoria and have an advantage. Net, the many clones of GroupOn are mostly due to what GroupOn is doing instead of SV. So, why can GroupOn have such a high market capitalization? Because of the practice of pricing companies based only on very recent data. I would have another objection about SV: I can believe that the biomedical VCs know what they are doing. I believe that the 'problem sponsors' at NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, etc. know very well what they are doing. But for the information technology (IT) VCs, I ROFL and then crying. The incompetence is astounding, outrageous, off the wall, out of some Alice in Wonderland, beyond belief. Actually, YC is a grand exception: Most or all of the partners actually have some solid qualifications in IT. Otherwise, we're looking at history majors who got an MBA, worked in 'management consulting', 'development', 'marketing', analyzing stocks, and, thus, accumulated "deep domain knowledge". What a LAUGH: They don't know the first thing about IT, even the old stuff, and they have not a clue about evaluating things for the future. What technical IT founder would want to hire one of these ignorant, arrogant blowhards? These blowhards are not qualified to do anything technical, teach a technical course in a university (or even high school), write a technical paper, review a technical paper, get a research grant, etc. Again, at biomedical VC, NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, and YC, the situation is wildly different. The non-technical situation in VC IT is so uniform that I have to look for a single cause, and my guess is that the situation is not due just to the VCs but to their LPs. It's very much as if some of the leading LPs wrote the criteria for each of seed, Series A, B, and C rounds on one side of a 3 x 5" card and insist that the VCs follow these criteria. In particular, the criteria demand that the VCs just ignore the 'secret sauce'. What to pay attention to? Seed round: Look at the prototype software and estimate if many users will like it and give their 'eyeballs'. Series A: Have the number of unique eyeballs per month at at least 100,000 and growing rapidly. Series B: Have revenue growing rapidly. Series C: Have earnings, and buy a chunk of the company based mostly just on the earnings and exit possibilities. For any estimate of building a serious company, ignore that. At an IT VC table, without YC, now tough to find an A. Viterbi or G. Moore on either side of the table. That 3 x 5" card IT VC criteria explains the trivia she sees. On this point, I agree with her.

david927 15y ago
First, sorry to be 'sexist' Apology not accepted. The over-200 that upvoted this are not all women; Tim O'Reilly is not woman. We all agree with her assessment: that SV has become a place where people are not so much pushing the edges of technology but "innovating" new ways to make money with existing technology. The quotes are mine; that's not innovation. Bob Marley once sang, "It's only machines that make man free." Progress is via expanded technology is a rising tide that will lift all boats. As computer scientists, it's our duty to explore what can be done, not what money can be made. It's our duty to expand the state of the technology, not the state of the industry. If you want to make money, be a dentist. If you want to innovate, get out of the valley, because it will corrupt you.
- NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
  My remarks about women are dead on the center of the target. If you don't understand that, then I'm sorry: Read slowly and carefully and learn likely some very important information. The information could save a life, yours, some woman you know and/or love, and/or some children. NO JOKE. I very much know just what the heck I'm talking about, very unfortunately. Sure, not all women are like I described, but some surprisingly large fraction are. I mentioned the Roman Catholic church as a source; review what you know about that church and add details for yourself. Sorry you didn't know those things about women. If you won't take this common wisdom from me, then take it from the writers of the second 'Jurassic Park' as I noted. The fraction of such women is so large that my description is a good candidate to explain what the author is saying. That is, she wants to 'save the world' and wants SV to do so also. Deliberately refusing to understand women is foolish down to dangerous down to fatal. Literally. Do I have to give you names, circumstances, dates, and where the tomb stones are? Just because some women are as I described does not mean that no men are. Okay, some men can be similar. For your "duty", you are imagining things. You have no such 'duty' at all. None. Zip, zilch, zero. If following what that 'duty' would say is something you want to do, then go for it, but no one, neither you nor anyone else, should agree that you have a 'duty'. You have no such 'duty'. For 'innovation', I've been there, done that, am doing it now. I'm doing a startup. I'm in NY, not SV, but I have a list of a dozen or so VCs in SV who are eager to see my software run and be ready for users. Your claims of 'corruption' are out of some vulnerability to 'morality' plays, of some old claims that humans are evil, sinful, do transgressions, get retribution, and need redemption with sacrifice -- and now we will have the choir sing while we pass the offering plate. But I'm not "corrupted" at all. SV has done nothing to 'corrupt' me. My 'innovation' is some original research in applied math with some theorems and proofs based on some advanced prerequisites in pure and applied math. Only a small fraction of university math profs have all the prerequisites; the fraction among computer science profs is much lower; the fraction among information technology entrepreneurs is still much lower, essentially at zip, zilch, and zero. So, my work is, if only being so rare, 'innovative'. It is also 'innovative' because it provides a new and powerful way for software to work with 'meaning' of quite general 'media content' as humans understand it although uses techniques much different than humans do. Maybe, if from my applied math and corresponding software my Web site becomes worth $150 billion from being by far the world's best at search, discovery, recommendation, subscription, and curation for about 2/3rds of the content on the Internet. then you will be convinced that my work is 'innovative'. So it's fair for me to say I'm 'innovating'. So, SV has not kept me from 'innovating'. SV has not 'corrupted' me. But absolutely, positively SV and VCs make no attempt to look at my research as part of evaluating the financial potential of my project. As I outlined, in biomedical VC, NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, etc., the situation is wildly different. And THAT is where I would criticize SV and VCs and agree with the article. I said that. "Duty", "corrupt" -- you sound a bit 'moralistic'! Calm down. Cool off. Relax. Have a beer. Watch a movie. For more on what's wrong with SV, it's not just the VCs who are not qualified compared with 'project sponsors' at NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR and at the biomedical VCs; in addition the information technology (IT) entrepreneurs nearly never have the 'right stuff'. Sorry 'bout that. As I've explained often enough, bluntly, frankly, 'computer science' is out'a gas and not the main path to the future of computing or IT entrepreneurship. Sorry 'bout that. For 'computer science', it's trivial down to junk think. The bedrock and crucial content of the future of computing is from: Let me have the envelope please: Here is it: "Advanced pure and applied math.". Period. Sorry 'bout that. E.g., at Stanford, f'get about the Computer Science department, look up D. Luenberger, and study, say, David G. Luenberger, 'Optimization by Vector Space Methods', John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. which is fun and profit mostly from the Hahn-Banach theorem. Again, there is a fundamental problem: Only a tiny fraction of people can start really successful businesses. So, only a tiny fraction of people will know in good terms what the good directions are for the future. So, anyone with such understanding will necessarily be rarely understood and nearly always rejected. For what is wrong with SV, I outlined it, but the details of my view are likely not widely shared. In particular, I doubt that the author of the article or many people upvoting this thread would say that the future of computing is much more in David G. Luenberger, 'Optimization by Vector Space Methods', John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. etc. than in computer science. Right away, don't expect to accept what I'm saying easily. Still, rejection is dangerous: You have to consider very carefully because I might be right!

david927 15y ago

First, sorry to be 'sexist' Apology not accepted. The over-200 that upvoted this are not all women; Tim O'Reilly is not woman. We all agree with her assessment: that SV has become a place where people are not so much pushing the edges of technology but "innovating" new ways to make money with existing technology. The quotes are mine; that's not innovation. Bob Marley once sang, "It's only machines that make man free." Progress is via expanded technology is a rising tide that will lift all boats. As computer scientists, it's our duty to explore what can be done, not what money can be made. It's our duty to expand the state of the technology, not the state of the industry. If you want to make money, be a dentist. If you want to innovate, get out of the valley, because it will corrupt you.

NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
My remarks about women are dead on the center of the target. If you don't understand that, then I'm sorry: Read slowly and carefully and learn likely some very important information. The information could save a life, yours, some woman you know and/or love, and/or some children. NO JOKE. I very much know just what the heck I'm talking about, very unfortunately. Sure, not all women are like I described, but some surprisingly large fraction are. I mentioned the Roman Catholic church as a source; review what you know about that church and add details for yourself. Sorry you didn't know those things about women. If you won't take this common wisdom from me, then take it from the writers of the second 'Jurassic Park' as I noted. The fraction of such women is so large that my description is a good candidate to explain what the author is saying. That is, she wants to 'save the world' and wants SV to do so also. Deliberately refusing to understand women is foolish down to dangerous down to fatal. Literally. Do I have to give you names, circumstances, dates, and where the tomb stones are? Just because some women are as I described does not mean that no men are. Okay, some men can be similar. For your "duty", you are imagining things. You have no such 'duty' at all. None. Zip, zilch, zero. If following what that 'duty' would say is something you want to do, then go for it, but no one, neither you nor anyone else, should agree that you have a 'duty'. You have no such 'duty'. For 'innovation', I've been there, done that, am doing it now. I'm doing a startup. I'm in NY, not SV, but I have a list of a dozen or so VCs in SV who are eager to see my software run and be ready for users. Your claims of 'corruption' are out of some vulnerability to 'morality' plays, of some old claims that humans are evil, sinful, do transgressions, get retribution, and need redemption with sacrifice -- and now we will have the choir sing while we pass the offering plate. But I'm not "corrupted" at all. SV has done nothing to 'corrupt' me. My 'innovation' is some original research in applied math with some theorems and proofs based on some advanced prerequisites in pure and applied math. Only a small fraction of university math profs have all the prerequisites; the fraction among computer science profs is much lower; the fraction among information technology entrepreneurs is still much lower, essentially at zip, zilch, and zero. So, my work is, if only being so rare, 'innovative'. It is also 'innovative' because it provides a new and powerful way for software to work with 'meaning' of quite general 'media content' as humans understand it although uses techniques much different than humans do. Maybe, if from my applied math and corresponding software my Web site becomes worth $150 billion from being by far the world's best at search, discovery, recommendation, subscription, and curation for about 2/3rds of the content on the Internet. then you will be convinced that my work is 'innovative'. So it's fair for me to say I'm 'innovating'. So, SV has not kept me from 'innovating'. SV has not 'corrupted' me. But absolutely, positively SV and VCs make no attempt to look at my research as part of evaluating the financial potential of my project. As I outlined, in biomedical VC, NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, etc., the situation is wildly different. And THAT is where I would criticize SV and VCs and agree with the article. I said that. "Duty", "corrupt" -- you sound a bit 'moralistic'! Calm down. Cool off. Relax. Have a beer. Watch a movie. For more on what's wrong with SV, it's not just the VCs who are not qualified compared with 'project sponsors' at NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR and at the biomedical VCs; in addition the information technology (IT) entrepreneurs nearly never have the 'right stuff'. Sorry 'bout that. As I've explained often enough, bluntly, frankly, 'computer science' is out'a gas and not the main path to the future of computing or IT entrepreneurship. Sorry 'bout that. For 'computer science', it's trivial down to junk think. The bedrock and crucial content of the future of computing is from: Let me have the envelope please: Here is it: "Advanced pure and applied math.". Period. Sorry 'bout that. E.g., at Stanford, f'get about the Computer Science department, look up D. Luenberger, and study, say, David G. Luenberger, 'Optimization by Vector Space Methods', John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. which is fun and profit mostly from the Hahn-Banach theorem. Again, there is a fundamental problem: Only a tiny fraction of people can start really successful businesses. So, only a tiny fraction of people will know in good terms what the good directions are for the future. So, anyone with such understanding will necessarily be rarely understood and nearly always rejected. For what is wrong with SV, I outlined it, but the details of my view are likely not widely shared. In particular, I doubt that the author of the article or many people upvoting this thread would say that the future of computing is much more in David G. Luenberger, 'Optimization by Vector Space Methods', John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. etc. than in computer science. Right away, don't expect to accept what I'm saying easily. Still, rejection is dangerous: You have to consider very carefully because I might be right!