3 ms·

I meant strategically important according to the government. From the 2022 NSS (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrati

I meant strategically important according to the government. From the 2022 NSS (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-...) > Technology > Technology is central to today’s geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy and democracy. U.S. and allied leadership in technology and innovation has long underpinned our economic prosperity and military strength. In the next decade, critical and emerging technologies are poised to retool economies, transform militaries, and reshape the world... our technology strategy will enable the United States and like-minded democracies to work together to pioneer new medicines that can cure diseases, increase the production of healthy foods that are sustainably grown, diversify and strengthen our manufacturing supply chains, and secure energy without reliance on fossil fuels, all while delivering new jobs and security for the American people and our allies and partners. With bipartisan support, we have launched a modern industrial strategy and already secured historic investments in clean energy, microelectronics manufacturing, research, and development, and biotechnology, and we will work with Congress to fully fund ... > We also are doubling down on our longstanding and asymmetric strategic advantage: attracting and retaining the world’s best talent. Attracting a higher volume of global STEM talent is a priority for our national security and supply chain security, so we will aggressively implement recent visa actions and work with Congress to do more. > These investments will enable the United States to anchor an allied techno-industrial base that will safeguard our shared security, prosperity and values. I'm not sure Calendly is necessarily central to the articulated strategy. And I agree that most tech companies don't produce much of value at all. But the administration seems to think the future direction for the U.S. is tech, especially energy and military tech. And it begs the question: if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China?

yunwal 4y ago
> if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here. Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model. If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  > If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
    - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
      > non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies The same problem plagues all of these models: they're hierarchical and top-heavy. Having worked at traditional companies and having considered a career in academia; there's a reason these organizations get outboxed. Innovation requires risk and investment. How are any of these three an effective model of risk? Big companies will invest without taking risk, research organizations and academia will take risks without investing, and branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov). > The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want, but there are widely-known systemic issues with all of these alternative structures that makes them ineffective. > and will again Only if you create a walled garden where they are the only competitor. Obviously the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick. For rocketry, semiconductors, etc. (i.e., fields which require large upfront capital investment) these alternative investment models fare better.

yunwal 4y ago

> if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here. Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model. If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    > non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies The same problem plagues all of these models: they're hierarchical and top-heavy. Having worked at traditional companies and having considered a career in academia; there's a reason these organizations get outboxed. Innovation requires risk and investment. How are any of these three an effective model of risk? Big companies will invest without taking risk, research organizations and academia will take risks without investing, and branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov). > The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want, but there are widely-known systemic issues with all of these alternative structures that makes them ineffective. > and will again Only if you create a walled garden where they are the only competitor. Obviously the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick. For rocketry, semiconductors, etc. (i.e., fields which require large upfront capital investment) these alternative investment models fare better.