4 ms·

In control systems, a common tradeoff is between a fast response that overshoots or a slow response that does not overshoot. We've seen that pace of innovation

In control systems, a common tradeoff is between a fast response that overshoots or a slow response that does not overshoot. We've seen that pace of innovation matters and if your goal is to maximize the pace of innovation, you want that fast response even if it means overshooting somewhat whenever there's a step change.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
I am not sure if you mean that dirt-cheap money accelerated the pace of innovation. But, if that is what you mean, i.e. historically low interest rates accelerate the pace of innovation, we would witness innovation gains in countries with negative or zero interest rates. But we haven't seen any shift. There's a difference between malinvestment and investing in projects that don't go anywhere. This is the difference between burning cash in a bonfire, vs using $1 dollar to make $0.XX cents. I'd argue the system was rife with the former, not the latter
- aeternum 4y ago
  People really can't predict what investments represent the bonfire vs. good investments, and even if they get that right, it's even harder to get the timing right. For example myspace vs. facebook, webvan vs. amazon vs. instacart. You can also look at physical industries like the aerospace boom after WW2 that brought us into the jet age. The high influx of cash allows huge numbers of companies to bloom, representing the testing of lots of ideas and designs in parallel. Many aerospace companies failed, just as many tech companies have failed, but those tests accelerate innovation.
cudgy 4y ago
“We've seen that pace of innovation matters and if your goal is to maximize the pace of innovation, you want that fast response even if it means overshooting somewhat whenever there's a step change.” Does the pace of innovation really matter as much as you think? Or is it possible execution on the business side can matter more? Also, it has been proven that adding more software developers can actually slow down a project. Increased hiring, therefore, does not necessarily correlate with faster innovation.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

I am not sure if you mean that dirt-cheap money accelerated the pace of innovation. But, if that is what you mean, i.e. historically low interest rates accelerate the pace of innovation, we would witness innovation gains in countries with negative or zero interest rates. But we haven't seen any shift. There's a difference between malinvestment and investing in projects that don't go anywhere. This is the difference between burning cash in a bonfire, vs using $1 dollar to make $0.XX cents. I'd argue the system was rife with the former, not the latter

aeternum 4y ago
People really can't predict what investments represent the bonfire vs. good investments, and even if they get that right, it's even harder to get the timing right. For example myspace vs. facebook, webvan vs. amazon vs. instacart. You can also look at physical industries like the aerospace boom after WW2 that brought us into the jet age. The high influx of cash allows huge numbers of companies to bloom, representing the testing of lots of ideas and designs in parallel. Many aerospace companies failed, just as many tech companies have failed, but those tests accelerate innovation.

cudgy 4y ago

“We've seen that pace of innovation matters and if your goal is to maximize the pace of innovation, you want that fast response even if it means overshooting somewhat whenever there's a step change.” Does the pace of innovation really matter as much as you think? Or is it possible execution on the business side can matter more? Also, it has been proven that adding more software developers can actually slow down a project. Increased hiring, therefore, does not necessarily correlate with faster innovation.