5 ms·

The Manhattan project was a government project that was run like a startup. If such a project happened today, academic scientists would be trying to figure out

The Manhattan project was a government project that was run like a startup. If such a project happened today, academic scientists would be trying to figure out ways to bend their existing research to match the grants. Then it would take another 30 years before people started to ask why nothing has been delivered yet.

ricksunny 2y ago
Sounds like Eric Weinstein'a take (which I appreciate) on theoretical physics research.
- infamouscow 2y ago
  I also like Eric Weinstein, but the non-physics aspects of his perspective are essentially the philosophy of Curtis Yarvin distilled and presented in a way that's more digestible to classic liberals.
schmidtleonard 2y ago
Nuclear physics had just "cracked open" and there were lots of highly promising prospects to pursue. You can't recreate that historical situation by switching from agile to scrum, or from scrum to agile.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
griffzhowl 2y ago
Run like a startup in what respect? It was a massive government-directed military project in wartime that was able to recruit all the top theoretical physicists at the time around a common aim in an urgent technological arms race to build the bomb. It included a vast effort of army engineers to build the facilities to process the fuel and so on. I'm not seeing the parallels with startups.
- soganess 2y ago
  I just want to echo this! They built a gosh darned city... oh wait, I was wrong, they built three. It was run like an extremely high-value military project, which is exactly what it was. Sure it was more theoretical than other military projects(at the time), but that is the game sometimes. I get the sense that some folks just think "faster then we would do it now" is the same as startup. Which, to put it politely, I strongly disagree with. Startups are great and I am grateful for the daily value adds to my life, but pretending everything "fast" has startup mentality is just missing the mark.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    In this context I'm not sure what "startup" is supposed to mean; but companies are fully capable of building up new cities if it makes economic sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town. Disney was famously looking to run his own nuclear reactor so it is easy to imagine a private company doing fundamental nuclear research even if it isn't part of the nuclear industry.
- neura 2y ago
  Even your description sounds like a startup, to me. There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part. I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project? The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in wartime. I was curious if there was some more specific rationale for the startup comparison
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> The Manhattan project was a government project that was run like a startup. Run directly by the government employees, and directly hiring the nessesary people to work for the government. today we would call that socialist or some such, opposite of startup? > If such a project happened today, academic scientists would be trying to figure out ways to bend their existing research to match the grants You missed important step- such a project today would start by the government handing out grants, stimulus and tax breaks. If they directly hired the nessesary people, there would be no fighting for grants. People do what incentives demand

ricksunny 2y ago

Sounds like Eric Weinstein'a take (which I appreciate) on theoretical physics research.

infamouscow 2y ago
I also like Eric Weinstein, but the non-physics aspects of his perspective are essentially the philosophy of Curtis Yarvin distilled and presented in a way that's more digestible to classic liberals.

schmidtleonard 2y ago

Nuclear physics had just "cracked open" and there were lots of highly promising prospects to pursue. You can't recreate that historical situation by switching from agile to scrum, or from scrum to agile.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

griffzhowl 2y ago

Run like a startup in what respect? It was a massive government-directed military project in wartime that was able to recruit all the top theoretical physicists at the time around a common aim in an urgent technological arms race to build the bomb. It included a vast effort of army engineers to build the facilities to process the fuel and so on. I'm not seeing the parallels with startups.

soganess 2y ago
I just want to echo this! They built a gosh darned city... oh wait, I was wrong, they built three. It was run like an extremely high-value military project, which is exactly what it was. Sure it was more theoretical than other military projects(at the time), but that is the game sometimes. I get the sense that some folks just think "faster then we would do it now" is the same as startup. Which, to put it politely, I strongly disagree with. Startups are great and I am grateful for the daily value adds to my life, but pretending everything "fast" has startup mentality is just missing the mark.
- roenxi 2y ago
  In this context I'm not sure what "startup" is supposed to mean; but companies are fully capable of building up new cities if it makes economic sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town. Disney was famously looking to run his own nuclear reactor so it is easy to imagine a private company doing fundamental nuclear research even if it isn't part of the nuclear industry.
neura 2y ago
Even your description sounds like a startup, to me. There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part. I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project? The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in wartime. I was curious if there was some more specific rationale for the startup comparison

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> The Manhattan project was a government project that was run like a startup. Run directly by the government employees, and directly hiring the nessesary people to work for the government. today we would call that socialist or some such, opposite of startup? > If such a project happened today, academic scientists would be trying to figure out ways to bend their existing research to match the grants You missed important step- such a project today would start by the government handing out grants, stimulus and tax breaks. If they directly hired the nessesary people, there would be no fighting for grants. People do what incentives demand