8 ms·

Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "roc

by cool-RR 17y ago

Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "rocket science," [...] I disagree. I agree that building a start-up involves less rigor than doing research, but rigor is just one variable among many in the success of a research (or a start-up.) I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research.

dinkumthinkum 17y ago
But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.
- cool-RR 17y ago
  I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)
apu 17y ago
I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.

by cool-RR 17y ago

dinkumthinkum 17y ago

But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.

cool-RR 17y ago
I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)

apu 17y ago

I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.