5 ms·

I want something that doesn’t operate on scarcity (like the corporation), but can work at the velocity of a corporation. Things like GPS and the internet would

I want something that doesn’t operate on scarcity (like the corporation), but can work at the velocity of a corporation. Things like GPS and the internet would’ve been deployed much faster by a private corporation but then they would be dumb monopolies as opposed to the public good they are now. Also we need a space to work on big dumb ideas and toys[1] and neither Unix, Uber or GPS fit in that category. What is that sweet spot? [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/library/3U-why-build-toys https://www.ycombinator.com/library/3U-why-build-toys

zmgsabst 4y ago
I think the answer is corporations — but with a different culture. Social purpose corporation with crowdfunding and transparency seems like it would accomplish much of what you want.
- petre 4y ago
  Aren't governments exactly that? Except for the transparency part. Once the 1% hold the power, it all goes to waste.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No — governments coerce you to participate, rather than being a voluntary association.
cauthon 4y ago
> Things like GPS and the internet would’ve been deployed much faster by a private corporation but then they would be dumb monopolies as opposed to the public good they are now. 1) at least in the USA, access to the internet is not a public good, it is provided by an oligopoly (and in many circumstances a functional monopoly, where service at a given address is only available from a single ISP) 2) why do you believe that either GPS or the internet would have been deployed faster by a private corporation?
- pj_mukh 4y ago
  I would compare GPS to something like Starlink which went from idea to activation in 5 years while GPS took over 15. While of course, Starlink relied on government know-how, given away for free, the speed of deployment was 2-3x. In the end we’re left with a monopoly service which sucks. But, it came together quick. Why can’t we have both? Fast deploying public goods.
  - meheleventyone 4y ago
    Isn’t that more to do with when GPS was deployed. Doing things early is harder and takes longer, even more so when you’re first. Comparatively Starlink has fewer novel problems to solve. If you’re going to compare the two you need to control for confounding factors.
    - pj_mukh 4y ago
      Sure but they had full access to 20 years of launch technology from NASA at that point. More generally, I don’t think “Government works slower then private corporations” is that controversial a conclusion. If we’re gonna try to improve it, we have to admit the problem first.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      >Comparatively Starlink has fewer novel problems to solve. Lol, this is worse than the infamous Dropbox comment. There are no LEO providers except for Starlink for a reason. Starlink required novel launch techniques, novel antennas, novel network management, and that’s just what we know about publicly.
      - trasz 4y ago
        The “infamous Dropbox comment” was technically valid - there’s no novel technology there. What the comment missed was the business part - Dropbox is technically inferior, but at the same time it’s superior business-wise, and that’s a common theme for the vast majority of web startups.
      - 4y ago
msla 4y ago
The Internet already got out so fast it beat the Big Government Solution, which was OSI, so comprehensively that people these days don't even know that there was an OSI protocol suite, let alone that it got beaten by the TCP/IP stack. Back in the early days, the ARPANET stuff was seen as a sideshow, whereas OSI was going to be the Serious Network for Serious Users, with X.500 directory services supporting X.400 email and nobody would remember toys like LDAP and SMTP and POP. Of course, these days the idea that TCP/IP somehow implements a purely conceptual OSI is so ingrained that people get angry when you tell them the accurate history. So it goes.
- petre 4y ago
  The OSI model is too complicated. I learned about it in the CCNA course. That's why it continues to exist as a mere model.
- trasz 4y ago
  I believe OSI was at least as much corporate as it was governmental. And, like most corporate solutions it ended like it ended, with design by committee. IP on the other hand was neither, like much of successful technology. As a side note, the OSI layers are useful as a mental model, but trying to maintain that separation in actual implementation is a poor idea; that’s one of the things IP got right: it doesn’t really match OSI layering, and does cut through layers when it makes sense.
  - msla 4y ago
    > that’s one of the things IP got right: it doesn’t really match OSI layering, and does cut through layers when it makes sense. It doesn't implement the OSI layering model, in other words, even if you can almost make that model fit if you ignore the top couple layers and handwave vigorously the rest of the time. If you look, you can find a four-layer or five-layer TCP/IP model, but RFC 3439 has a section titled "Layering Considered Harmful" and it's clear that the IETF doesn't always think in terms of layers. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3439 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3439 Of course, none of that stops the Seven-Layer Model (blessed be its name) from being perpetuated as if it were an absolute.

zmgsabst 4y ago

I think the answer is corporations — but with a different culture. Social purpose corporation with crowdfunding and transparency seems like it would accomplish much of what you want.

petre 4y ago
Aren't governments exactly that? Except for the transparency part. Once the 1% hold the power, it all goes to waste.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  No — governments coerce you to participate, rather than being a voluntary association.

cauthon 4y ago

> Things like GPS and the internet would’ve been deployed much faster by a private corporation but then they would be dumb monopolies as opposed to the public good they are now. 1) at least in the USA, access to the internet is not a public good, it is provided by an oligopoly (and in many circumstances a functional monopoly, where service at a given address is only available from a single ISP) 2) why do you believe that either GPS or the internet would have been deployed faster by a private corporation?

pj_mukh 4y ago
I would compare GPS to something like Starlink which went from idea to activation in 5 years while GPS took over 15. While of course, Starlink relied on government know-how, given away for free, the speed of deployment was 2-3x. In the end we’re left with a monopoly service which sucks. But, it came together quick. Why can’t we have both? Fast deploying public goods.
- meheleventyone 4y ago
  Isn’t that more to do with when GPS was deployed. Doing things early is harder and takes longer, even more so when you’re first. Comparatively Starlink has fewer novel problems to solve. If you’re going to compare the two you need to control for confounding factors.
  - pj_mukh 4y ago
    Sure but they had full access to 20 years of launch technology from NASA at that point. More generally, I don’t think “Government works slower then private corporations” is that controversial a conclusion. If we’re gonna try to improve it, we have to admit the problem first.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    >Comparatively Starlink has fewer novel problems to solve. Lol, this is worse than the infamous Dropbox comment. There are no LEO providers except for Starlink for a reason. Starlink required novel launch techniques, novel antennas, novel network management, and that’s just what we know about publicly.
    - trasz 4y ago
      The “infamous Dropbox comment” was technically valid - there’s no novel technology there. What the comment missed was the business part - Dropbox is technically inferior, but at the same time it’s superior business-wise, and that’s a common theme for the vast majority of web startups.
    - 4y ago

msla 4y ago

The Internet already got out so fast it beat the Big Government Solution, which was OSI, so comprehensively that people these days don't even know that there was an OSI protocol suite, let alone that it got beaten by the TCP/IP stack. Back in the early days, the ARPANET stuff was seen as a sideshow, whereas OSI was going to be the Serious Network for Serious Users, with X.500 directory services supporting X.400 email and nobody would remember toys like LDAP and SMTP and POP. Of course, these days the idea that TCP/IP somehow implements a purely conceptual OSI is so ingrained that people get angry when you tell them the accurate history. So it goes.

petre 4y ago
The OSI model is too complicated. I learned about it in the CCNA course. That's why it continues to exist as a mere model.
trasz 4y ago
I believe OSI was at least as much corporate as it was governmental. And, like most corporate solutions it ended like it ended, with design by committee. IP on the other hand was neither, like much of successful technology. As a side note, the OSI layers are useful as a mental model, but trying to maintain that separation in actual implementation is a poor idea; that’s one of the things IP got right: it doesn’t really match OSI layering, and does cut through layers when it makes sense.
- msla 4y ago
  > that’s one of the things IP got right: it doesn’t really match OSI layering, and does cut through layers when it makes sense. It doesn't implement the OSI layering model, in other words, even if you can almost make that model fit if you ignore the top couple layers and handwave vigorously the rest of the time. If you look, you can find a four-layer or five-layer TCP/IP model, but RFC 3439 has a section titled "Layering Considered Harmful" and it's clear that the IETF doesn't always think in terms of layers. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3439 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3439 Of course, none of that stops the Seven-Layer Model (blessed be its name) from being perpetuated as if it were an absolute.