3 ms·

So, then journalists should be mercilessly and ruthlessly critical of all they are covering? ARPA-E judges are pretty smart folks, if they were fooled by this t

by selmnoo 13y ago

So, then journalists should be mercilessly and ruthlessly critical of all they are covering? ARPA-E judges are pretty smart folks, if they were fooled by this thing what makes you think a journalist on some tech news site is going to be able to vet this technology and determine if it's the going to be the next big thing or not? The point I really want to discuss is the negativity of your comment. We like to come down hard on people dismissing new projects for being incomplete, unpromising, and so on when it comes to social sharing apps. Why not also be kind to failures in the cleantech area? The area where it's actually really tough to innovate, the area where improvements would definitively make this earth better than how it's currently heading. ARPA-E's own stated mission is to fund ideas that are so far out that most institutions wouldn't fund them, "too early for private-sector investment" (their words). ARPA-E itself only expects 10% of the projects it funds to be successful. So then what good reason is there to cry about some specific project failing? It doesn't spell the end of ARPA-E, this is just the nature of the game. This is not some tragedy of news journals failing, nothing is wrong here, just move on. More will fail yet still, but one just might be that breakthrough that we're looking forward to.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
I mention it because the author of this article tried to point out how he was a skeptic in 2012. But the same publication was not exercising skepticism in 2011.
- laumars 13y ago
  After reading your comment, I went back to read the authors 2012 article and even that doesn't demonstrate that much scepticism. The title and sub heading reads as follows: "A Big Jump in Battery Capacity If Envia can overcome some key problems, its technology could cut the cost of electric-car batteries in half." Which, to me, is just as hyped up as the other articles he's criticizing. In fact the most sceptical parts of that article were just him saying "it's not ready yet", which isn't so much scepticism but more anticipation. I'm a little disappointed with the author for this. I don't like the way how the press always have to sensationalise everything, but I accept that it happens. However to post the kind of snide remark as he did regarding others hyping technology, yet to do the exact same thing yourself in the very article you're citing as evidence of your own scepticism, well it's just pathetic in my opinion.

by selmnoo 13y ago

thrownaway2424 13y ago

I mention it because the author of this article tried to point out how he was a skeptic in 2012. But the same publication was not exercising skepticism in 2011.

laumars 13y ago
After reading your comment, I went back to read the authors 2012 article and even that doesn't demonstrate that much scepticism. The title and sub heading reads as follows: "A Big Jump in Battery Capacity If Envia can overcome some key problems, its technology could cut the cost of electric-car batteries in half." Which, to me, is just as hyped up as the other articles he's criticizing. In fact the most sceptical parts of that article were just him saying "it's not ready yet", which isn't so much scepticism but more anticipation. I'm a little disappointed with the author for this. I don't like the way how the press always have to sensationalise everything, but I accept that it happens. However to post the kind of snide remark as he did regarding others hyping technology, yet to do the exact same thing yourself in the very article you're citing as evidence of your own scepticism, well it's just pathetic in my opinion.