3 ms·

We've become lazy. Its much easier building a photo uploader in php (aka facebook) than actually build something or put man on the moon.

crusso 14y ago
The funny thing is that the people making their money in software and entertainment: John Carmack, Elon Musk, Larry Page, James Cameron, etc... are the ones getting us to space and re-igniting the space program that the general population lost interest in funding a long time ago. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57419801/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-by-james-cameron-google-ceo-larry-page/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57419801/asteroid-mining... http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.spacex.com/ http://www.spacex.com/ I say: Let the people with big ideas and great implementation skills make all the money they can legally. They're the ones we want to fund so they can pursue new interests and create new markets.
- spindritf 14y ago
  > the general population lost interest in funding a long time ago That's because the general population has been for a long time overpaying for not going to space https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/good-riddance-to-the-space-shuttle/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/good-riddance-...
  - crusso 14y ago
    Very true and that's an interesting article. The Shuttle Program is a great example of an idea that should have been allowed to fail. At very least (in YC terms), NASA needed to pivot hard much earlier on. The opportunity cost to mankind only existed because politicians and bureaucrats didn't get their funding and power from success at getting cargo and people into space economically and safely. They got it from overplaying their hands on past successes, diverting dollars to their constituencies and contractors to "bring home the bacon", and plain dumb government spending momentum. In other words, the incentive model of the Shuttle Program (and of NASA in general) was broken and no one with sufficient power ever did anything about it.
    - mkramlich 14y ago
      Agreed. The Shuttle, as operated, was a pretty stupid design, compared to the alternatives. I admire the folks who ran it for making it run as long and safely as it did. But it was insanely expensive. And fundamentally inferior, inefficient and risker compared to say just having a cylindrical multi-stage rocket and putting a payload on top of it, ala Saturn, Delta, Falcon, etc.
simondlr 14y ago
Facebook is not just a photo uploader in PHP. I can assure you that's not why Mark built it. Instagram is not just a photo app with filters. These products add more value than the sum of the parts. A car is not simply a combustion engine with wheels. Who would buy that? They buy it, because it takes them somewhere. Who would want a photo uploader in PHP? It's used because users find value in seeing their friends in photos. You must take the tech and use that to make something of REAL value, something people would want to use and understand why they would want to use it. But I do get what you mean. Preferably we would want to see people putting their minds into 'big' ideas, vast improvements in humanity (such as privatised spaceflight/mining). Facebook has value because it connects people, Instagram has value because it allows people to make their photos look good (and easily share it). Do you know what Elon wanted to do before SpaceX? He wanted to put a greenhouse on Mars, just so people could get excited about space again. SpaceX isn't just about reusable rockets, it's about selling the idea of a space-faring civilization. Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh, I'm just tired of people distilling products (that has value) into the parts, as if that is only what it 'actually' is.
- kraemate 14y ago
  There are complexities and nuances in the most 'trivial' activities of life. Brick laying is brick laying, you say, but there are several sophisticated factors at play at erecting a wall. But the core principal has remained the same "stack bricks neatly, and use a plumbing bob". Photo sharing services have been around a long time, and i will dare say that there isnt anything significantly 'valuable' about them. And by value, i mean value to society, not some arbitrary financial random-number wall-street assigns. The space-race produced several useful byproducts, while facebook is turning programmers into sheep who dream of writing instagram plugins. -- a space nut.
  - ojr 14y ago
    what did we achieve from going to the moon (there was nothing there)? Only a few people even saw the moon, ~900 million of people on facebook. Even people like Neil Armstrong has come against going to the moon again and is against SpaceX

crusso 14y ago

The funny thing is that the people making their money in software and entertainment: John Carmack, Elon Musk, Larry Page, James Cameron, etc... are the ones getting us to space and re-igniting the space program that the general population lost interest in funding a long time ago. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57419801/asteroid-mining-venture-backed-by-james-cameron-google-ceo-larry-page/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57419801/asteroid-mining... http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home http://www.spacex.com/ http://www.spacex.com/ I say: Let the people with big ideas and great implementation skills make all the money they can legally. They're the ones we want to fund so they can pursue new interests and create new markets.

spindritf 14y ago
> the general population lost interest in funding a long time ago That's because the general population has been for a long time overpaying for not going to space https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/good-riddance-to-the-space-shuttle/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/good-riddance-...
- crusso 14y ago
  Very true and that's an interesting article. The Shuttle Program is a great example of an idea that should have been allowed to fail. At very least (in YC terms), NASA needed to pivot hard much earlier on. The opportunity cost to mankind only existed because politicians and bureaucrats didn't get their funding and power from success at getting cargo and people into space economically and safely. They got it from overplaying their hands on past successes, diverting dollars to their constituencies and contractors to "bring home the bacon", and plain dumb government spending momentum. In other words, the incentive model of the Shuttle Program (and of NASA in general) was broken and no one with sufficient power ever did anything about it.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    Agreed. The Shuttle, as operated, was a pretty stupid design, compared to the alternatives. I admire the folks who ran it for making it run as long and safely as it did. But it was insanely expensive. And fundamentally inferior, inefficient and risker compared to say just having a cylindrical multi-stage rocket and putting a payload on top of it, ala Saturn, Delta, Falcon, etc.

simondlr 14y ago

Facebook is not just a photo uploader in PHP. I can assure you that's not why Mark built it. Instagram is not just a photo app with filters. These products add more value than the sum of the parts. A car is not simply a combustion engine with wheels. Who would buy that? They buy it, because it takes them somewhere. Who would want a photo uploader in PHP? It's used because users find value in seeing their friends in photos. You must take the tech and use that to make something of REAL value, something people would want to use and understand why they would want to use it. But I do get what you mean. Preferably we would want to see people putting their minds into 'big' ideas, vast improvements in humanity (such as privatised spaceflight/mining). Facebook has value because it connects people, Instagram has value because it allows people to make their photos look good (and easily share it). Do you know what Elon wanted to do before SpaceX? He wanted to put a greenhouse on Mars, just so people could get excited about space again. SpaceX isn't just about reusable rockets, it's about selling the idea of a space-faring civilization. Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh, I'm just tired of people distilling products (that has value) into the parts, as if that is only what it 'actually' is.

kraemate 14y ago
There are complexities and nuances in the most 'trivial' activities of life. Brick laying is brick laying, you say, but there are several sophisticated factors at play at erecting a wall. But the core principal has remained the same "stack bricks neatly, and use a plumbing bob". Photo sharing services have been around a long time, and i will dare say that there isnt anything significantly 'valuable' about them. And by value, i mean value to society, not some arbitrary financial random-number wall-street assigns. The space-race produced several useful byproducts, while facebook is turning programmers into sheep who dream of writing instagram plugins. -- a space nut.
- ojr 14y ago
  what did we achieve from going to the moon (there was nothing there)? Only a few people even saw the moon, ~900 million of people on facebook. Even people like Neil Armstrong has come against going to the moon again and is against SpaceX