I don't want to get into the argument about whether there has been digital innovation in the last ten years, but I'd like to note an observation about the 'worl

I don't want to get into the argument about whether there has been digital innovation in the last ten years, but I'd like to note an observation about the 'world of atoms' vs. 'world of bits' statement. One of silicon valley's strengths has been its tolerance for failure. Typically, if you found a startup and it goes under, you pick yourself back up and just get a job at a different startup or a big corp. However, I'm not so sure that this strength exists in the world of atoms to the same extent as in the world of bits. Perhaps it's because non-digital skills are less fungible, or perhaps it's because the valley is so crowded by the digital crowd that there in no room for a critical mass of atom-wranglers, but I suspect that the typical failure path for non-digital startups involves leaving the valley, or at least leaving the startup ecosystem. Perhaps Sam could speak more to this difference between the worlds of bits and atoms in the future. I know that YC is looking to do more innovative work in the world of atoms, and I laud this. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has noticed how much more successful the valley has been at bits than atoms since the 90s. I know that VCs would like to do more innovation with the atoms. But silicon valley seems to lack something when it comes to atoms that they have with bits. It's not the VCs; they are present and ready. Maybe it's something else.