4 ms·

I am not a physicist, and this is not an excuse for due diligence, but investing in this problem is certainly better than investing in the next app that sends m

I am not a physicist, and this is not an excuse for due diligence, but investing in this problem is certainly better than investing in the next app that sends messages or brings you beer. I feel there is a lack of initiative, money and publicity towards inventors solving real physics problems.

andrewstuart2 12y ago
That probably has to do with the fact that most of the real physics problems are being solved by theoretical physicists.
aaronbrethorst 12y ago
> solving real physics problems. Except the author says: crazy ideas that are physically impossible [with] dishonest PR [are raising lots of capital] while great ideas that have huge potential are sitting by the wayside trying to rise above the noise. A couple more well-capitalized total flame-outs will sour investors on this entire space, meaning that the companies that obey the laws of thermodynamics will be even more screwed than they are today. I'd rather this entire space be ignored than see top-tier VCs sour everyone on the industry.
- new299 12y ago
  >I'd rather this entire space be ignored than see top-tier VCs sour everyone on the industry. Agreed. However, if they don't know how to do DD a better one option would be just to fund more companies at a lower level. With a more realistic valuation that reflects the risk involved. However I don't think they like spreading their cash out like that. Overall, it seems like there's probably not enough seed level funding for science/basic tech startups.
  - mboer 12y ago
    I'm with you on that, but I don't know if it's a question of enough/not enough seed-level funding. I worry that there's an ever-increasing attempt being made to substitute in credentials for careful evaluation of actual ideas. I understand why relying heavily on pedigree is so attractive, but I wonder if startup failure rates would decrease and startups' overall quality would increase if that metric shifted.
new299 12y ago
I'm skeptical when people say that. Long term, this is more likely to harm science-based startup funding. If these investments don't pan out, they're more likely to just stop funding science/basic tech startups than they are to fix their DD issues.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  > Long term, this is more likely to harm science-based startup funding. Internet companies are still being funded a decade and a half after the dot com bubble wiped out orders of magnitude more wealth than this. People will not quit investing in science.
  - new299 12y ago
    >Internet companies are still being funded a decade and a half after the dot com bubble wiped out orders of magnitude more wealth than this. Because there have been some notably successful Internet companies I would guess. But if few of the science/basic tech companies pan out (return > 10x?), it will long term harm funding in this area.

andrewstuart2 12y ago

That probably has to do with the fact that most of the real physics problems are being solved by theoretical physicists.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

> solving real physics problems. Except the author says: crazy ideas that are physically impossible [with] dishonest PR [are raising lots of capital] while great ideas that have huge potential are sitting by the wayside trying to rise above the noise. A couple more well-capitalized total flame-outs will sour investors on this entire space, meaning that the companies that obey the laws of thermodynamics will be even more screwed than they are today. I'd rather this entire space be ignored than see top-tier VCs sour everyone on the industry.

new299 12y ago
>I'd rather this entire space be ignored than see top-tier VCs sour everyone on the industry. Agreed. However, if they don't know how to do DD a better one option would be just to fund more companies at a lower level. With a more realistic valuation that reflects the risk involved. However I don't think they like spreading their cash out like that. Overall, it seems like there's probably not enough seed level funding for science/basic tech startups.
- mboer 12y ago
  I'm with you on that, but I don't know if it's a question of enough/not enough seed-level funding. I worry that there's an ever-increasing attempt being made to substitute in credentials for careful evaluation of actual ideas. I understand why relying heavily on pedigree is so attractive, but I wonder if startup failure rates would decrease and startups' overall quality would increase if that metric shifted.

new299 12y ago

I'm skeptical when people say that. Long term, this is more likely to harm science-based startup funding. If these investments don't pan out, they're more likely to just stop funding science/basic tech startups than they are to fix their DD issues.

brandonmenc 12y ago
> Long term, this is more likely to harm science-based startup funding. Internet companies are still being funded a decade and a half after the dot com bubble wiped out orders of magnitude more wealth than this. People will not quit investing in science.
- new299 12y ago
  >Internet companies are still being funded a decade and a half after the dot com bubble wiped out orders of magnitude more wealth than this. Because there have been some notably successful Internet companies I would guess. But if few of the science/basic tech companies pan out (return > 10x?), it will long term harm funding in this area.