3 ms·

That's a fair point; there's something to be said for novel technology being developed by industries/organizations adjacent to but not directly involved in the

That's a fair point; there's something to be said for novel technology being developed by industries/organizations adjacent to but not directly involved in the industry of that technology. This seems to tend to yield better results than funding the industry directly. My guess at why, would be that occupants of the industry have an interest in maintaining the status quo, while players adjacent to the industry have an interest in novel, disruptive technologies in adjacent industries. For example, over a decade ago, the US paid hundreds of billions directly to telcos to fund the buildout of a nationwide fiber network. Perhaps if that money had gone to a different group, then a nationwide fiber network would exist.

MR4D 4y ago
You make a great point about "adjacent" players. However, in the case of the military, it's even moreso. . . Most companies (regardless of industry) seek profit. Whether that's Microsoft or AT&T, or anyone else, they seek profit, and will do just about anything to get it. The military, however, is not at all motivated by profit, but rather by winning wars. That has a very different profile than "profit", and being an existential sort of issue, prompts some very different outcomes. The internet is one outcome, as I mentioned before, but also things like depleted uranium, which are a byproduct of enriching uranium.[0] Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much of a civilian use for the material, but there sure is for war! Anytime you can get different motivations, you get a more diverse set of outcomes. Teflon and Tang are probably the best known ones from NASA efforts. NASA is of course interested in rockets and scientific research, which have some overlap with commercial and some overlap with the military. [0] - https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-uranium https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-u...
throwaway894345 4y ago
I think it’s just lack of imagination—no one in the 80s could see what the Internet could become—it would have been a huge gamble with little predictable value (of course, we have the benefit of hindsight).

MR4D 4y ago

You make a great point about "adjacent" players. However, in the case of the military, it's even moreso. . . Most companies (regardless of industry) seek profit. Whether that's Microsoft or AT&T, or anyone else, they seek profit, and will do just about anything to get it. The military, however, is not at all motivated by profit, but rather by winning wars. That has a very different profile than "profit", and being an existential sort of issue, prompts some very different outcomes. The internet is one outcome, as I mentioned before, but also things like depleted uranium, which are a byproduct of enriching uranium.[0] Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much of a civilian use for the material, but there sure is for war! Anytime you can get different motivations, you get a more diverse set of outcomes. Teflon and Tang are probably the best known ones from NASA efforts. NASA is of course interested in rockets and scientific research, which have some overlap with commercial and some overlap with the military. [0] - https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-uranium https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-u...

throwaway894345 4y ago

I think it’s just lack of imagination—no one in the 80s could see what the Internet could become—it would have been a huge gamble with little predictable value (of course, we have the benefit of hindsight).