4 ms·

Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt: > If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming th

by ra0x3 2y ago

Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt: > If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point. I realize that this applies to Google post-2015, but do you think it also applies to early Google? Where you actually had to get things done?

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc. After that? Actually building the thing? Not really? Jeff Dean: University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990) University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996) Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools): Cornell University (SB, 1987) MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995) I guess Urs was Stanford, though. But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024. And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
- all2 2y ago
  > It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies. This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots. What does the future look like to you?
  - bdw5204 2y ago
    Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be: Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) Space colonization Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality) Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster) Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits. I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.
    - all2 2y ago
      > Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner. > Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)? > Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space? > Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list. > Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. How can this be done and still turn investors a profit? > I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) What would you do?
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    It's worth pointing out that Google wasn't really moonshot stuff. It was a search engine, and there were other search engines. already. Then it became an advertising network before IPO, to make the $$. There were other ad networks already. The key thing is that they were able to invest heavily in infrastructure to do... big stuff... for many years before IPO. Like, boatloads of fiber, data centres, expensive employees, R&D. That money also let them make a superior UX that didn't dump crap in your face, which then acquired customers. I kind of wonder if the time might be ripe for new social networks to replace Facebook, Twitter, etc. that would be to existing "social media" what Google was to Yahoo or AltaVista or Lycos. Not garbage. Not in the way. Seemingly (for a time) ethical. User focused. Working with some new metaphors. Moderated. Civil. Facebook used to be a place to connect with friends and family. A thing that took the place of MySpace, Friendster, etc. and rapidly blew up because it was a way to get a hold of people and stay connected. Now it's ... something else. (I won't waste time here explaining why it is hot garbage now). I just don't know how that makes money without taking the same crappy path that FB did. But, Google also didn't know how it was going to make money.

by ra0x3 2y ago

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc. After that? Actually building the thing? Not really? Jeff Dean: University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990) University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996) Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools): Cornell University (SB, 1987) MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995) I guess Urs was Stanford, though. But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024. And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.

all2 2y ago
> It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies. This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots. What does the future look like to you?
- bdw5204 2y ago
  Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be: Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) Space colonization Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality) Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster) Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits. I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.
  - all2 2y ago
    > Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner. > Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)? > Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space? > Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list. > Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. How can this be done and still turn investors a profit? > I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) What would you do?
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  It's worth pointing out that Google wasn't really moonshot stuff. It was a search engine, and there were other search engines. already. Then it became an advertising network before IPO, to make the $$. There were other ad networks already. The key thing is that they were able to invest heavily in infrastructure to do... big stuff... for many years before IPO. Like, boatloads of fiber, data centres, expensive employees, R&D. That money also let them make a superior UX that didn't dump crap in your face, which then acquired customers. I kind of wonder if the time might be ripe for new social networks to replace Facebook, Twitter, etc. that would be to existing "social media" what Google was to Yahoo or AltaVista or Lycos. Not garbage. Not in the way. Seemingly (for a time) ethical. User focused. Working with some new metaphors. Moderated. Civil. Facebook used to be a place to connect with friends and family. A thing that took the place of MySpace, Friendster, etc. and rapidly blew up because it was a way to get a hold of people and stay connected. Now it's ... something else. (I won't waste time here explaining why it is hot garbage now). I just don't know how that makes money without taking the same crappy path that FB did. But, Google also didn't know how it was going to make money.