4 ms·

I find it interesting to consider valuations for the two costs in allowing the chips to be used. Intel chip revenue, and future business growth = +X Security

I find it interesting to consider valuations for the two costs in allowing the chips to be used. Intel chip revenue, and future business growth = +X Security concerns, and future security concerns = -Y I really wonder what the value of X-Y is, i.e., what's the net benefit? It's hard to reason about as a member of the public without inside information. Y is particularly opaque in this case. Also I really think the narrative of China versus or competing with the US is overcooked. It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other, and could stand to benefit far more from mutual strength than from any adversity. I guess the narrative makes for compelling reading tho, on both sides, for public consumption. Maybe similar to how the West vs Russia narrative of the Cold War promoted scientific activity. I just think the world's substantially moved on from such binary narratives, because as countries have developed and strengthened economic relationships, they actually have less to worry about in terms of conflict with each other. Then again, I guess a lot of what happens is opaque to reasoning about form the outside. So perhaps this is not a US vs China thing at all. Maybe there's some other strategy at play.

tete 12y ago
> It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other However domestic concerns that are hard to solve can benefit from (made-up) external concerns. It has also been used to enforce power internally. Other than that domestic concerns have the problem that solving them can change status quo and give the fact that such decisions of course are made by people that are currently in power it might play a role in keeping that power, also by distracting from the fact that it might not be to the benefit of the people. That of course doesn't have to be the main case and probably isn't here, but of course that is a pattern, basically like evolution or evolving systems (not just biologically). Status quo of being alive and dominant usually means that this dominance will be used to keep it, which often results in stagnation, which may lead to the benefit becoming a handicap later - like when you are too specialized to status quo. The US (government wise) seems to lately struggle a bit with the world being/becoming multi polar. Like not talking in a bad way, but of course one has to consider that we are basically just past a century that was basically about an unipolar world with the US as the only superpower and even if society and especially individuals change more quickly such a huge structure tends to be a bit slower, which is something we can see when we look for example at old/ancient laws, institutions, etc. that still exist. From a startup perspective: You might consider the old economy slow, but governments and especially the structures surrounding them are even slower. On the other hand it might also be related to something like "I am pissed at you, so you don't get it. Take that" things that sometimes happen, often causing big effects despite just being a temporal disagreement on some completely unrelated topic. After all there is just ordinary people working behind the scenes.
- humanarity 12y ago
  From a startup perspective I think it's an interesting opportunity the kinds of companies that will emerge to enhance government. I find it somewhat weird that there are basically no companies, well known and high growth, doing really integrated things with governments. Maybe I'm missing something here, and I just feel like there could be a mini boom possible in startups that provide some kind of enhancements. Of course there are traditional ones like Palantir and veteran spin offs for intelligence and military procurement. And there's the big and small DoD contractors in Maryland. And I've also at various times heard about startups that aim to "digitize" government in terms of putting forms and processes in the cloud. In some ostentatiously liberal places like in South America it seems these kind of digitisation startups are more popular, because there they're proud of how "progressive" they are :) I just feel there has to be way way more possibilities. Maybe I'm just out of the loop tho, and there's lots of movement. Basically I like government, because I feel the fundamental principle is noble: safeguarding order for the people. And I feel like all the things which don't work, like corruption, are simply inefficiencies which will be removed as the model (and maybe the tech) evolves. Status quo is often raised as a criticism of government, and status quo is government's core purpose, and doesn't necessarily mean it's sinister or stagnant, tho those sides can emerge. I think it really works that while everyone is rushing ahead to push their own agendas, there's large groups who are mostly trying to safeguard the order we already have. It seems to be not like an evil, and instead a necessary balance. So I don't think status quo needs to equal corruption, or lack of innovation: you can find better ways to maintain what you have! Also the issues that are sometimes attributed to the status quo attribute of government I believe stem from other things. The narrative of a crusty elite few concocting repressive schemes to hold onto the power they're so afraid the proles will somehow steal from them, even tho the proles haven't interfered with said elites success in the first place -- just seems like something too much out of a hero villain trope from the popular consciousness, and lacking in fidelity or explanatory power for reality. I'd go so far as to say this is the "Disney delusion" because the spectre of such fictional villains is alike to something conjured by the finest Disney cartoons! :) Another cognitive dissonance is people attribute the outsized evils effected by governments to so called outsized evil of the people in them. It's actually because power is a force magnifier, so ordinary evil, or which there is plenty even in everyday life, is given outsized expression through the lens of governments. Actually, with how chaotic individuals are I find it an amazing miracle that governments are as peaceful and stable as they are. Which no doubt stems from the conspicuous effort of people involved. So while it's a sometimes a common narrative to sledge governments, for a number of reasons only some of which I touch on here, I feel a more balanced view of them is clearer. And without a clear view, how can we operate effectively? None of which is to say that there aren't plenty of opportunities to create improvements in governments, a fact which, given the stakes, seems surprising more startups aren't magnetically drawn to it. An important point is I feel one reason contributing to lack of sexiness of government for startups is incorrect stories about government that we are inclined to tell. I basically think that ordinary people don't reason usefully about power, because they feel it's something somewhat incomprehensible to them, so they fallback to tools like the fake hero villain story above, comfortable "creation" myths which seem to explain the world, and actually may not. This lack of widespread useful conceptual tools for thinking about government and power may be one reason contributing to the dearth of government startups, if there is such a lack! Thanks for your comment, I hope you also got something out of this, I appreciate the opportunity to touch on such ideas.

tete 12y ago

> It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other However domestic concerns that are hard to solve can benefit from (made-up) external concerns. It has also been used to enforce power internally. Other than that domestic concerns have the problem that solving them can change status quo and give the fact that such decisions of course are made by people that are currently in power it might play a role in keeping that power, also by distracting from the fact that it might not be to the benefit of the people. That of course doesn't have to be the main case and probably isn't here, but of course that is a pattern, basically like evolution or evolving systems (not just biologically). Status quo of being alive and dominant usually means that this dominance will be used to keep it, which often results in stagnation, which may lead to the benefit becoming a handicap later - like when you are too specialized to status quo. The US (government wise) seems to lately struggle a bit with the world being/becoming multi polar. Like not talking in a bad way, but of course one has to consider that we are basically just past a century that was basically about an unipolar world with the US as the only superpower and even if society and especially individuals change more quickly such a huge structure tends to be a bit slower, which is something we can see when we look for example at old/ancient laws, institutions, etc. that still exist. From a startup perspective: You might consider the old economy slow, but governments and especially the structures surrounding them are even slower. On the other hand it might also be related to something like "I am pissed at you, so you don't get it. Take that" things that sometimes happen, often causing big effects despite just being a temporal disagreement on some completely unrelated topic. After all there is just ordinary people working behind the scenes.

humanarity 12y ago
From a startup perspective I think it's an interesting opportunity the kinds of companies that will emerge to enhance government. I find it somewhat weird that there are basically no companies, well known and high growth, doing really integrated things with governments. Maybe I'm missing something here, and I just feel like there could be a mini boom possible in startups that provide some kind of enhancements. Of course there are traditional ones like Palantir and veteran spin offs for intelligence and military procurement. And there's the big and small DoD contractors in Maryland. And I've also at various times heard about startups that aim to "digitize" government in terms of putting forms and processes in the cloud. In some ostentatiously liberal places like in South America it seems these kind of digitisation startups are more popular, because there they're proud of how "progressive" they are :) I just feel there has to be way way more possibilities. Maybe I'm just out of the loop tho, and there's lots of movement. Basically I like government, because I feel the fundamental principle is noble: safeguarding order for the people. And I feel like all the things which don't work, like corruption, are simply inefficiencies which will be removed as the model (and maybe the tech) evolves. Status quo is often raised as a criticism of government, and status quo is government's core purpose, and doesn't necessarily mean it's sinister or stagnant, tho those sides can emerge. I think it really works that while everyone is rushing ahead to push their own agendas, there's large groups who are mostly trying to safeguard the order we already have. It seems to be not like an evil, and instead a necessary balance. So I don't think status quo needs to equal corruption, or lack of innovation: you can find better ways to maintain what you have! Also the issues that are sometimes attributed to the status quo attribute of government I believe stem from other things. The narrative of a crusty elite few concocting repressive schemes to hold onto the power they're so afraid the proles will somehow steal from them, even tho the proles haven't interfered with said elites success in the first place -- just seems like something too much out of a hero villain trope from the popular consciousness, and lacking in fidelity or explanatory power for reality. I'd go so far as to say this is the "Disney delusion" because the spectre of such fictional villains is alike to something conjured by the finest Disney cartoons! :) Another cognitive dissonance is people attribute the outsized evils effected by governments to so called outsized evil of the people in them. It's actually because power is a force magnifier, so ordinary evil, or which there is plenty even in everyday life, is given outsized expression through the lens of governments. Actually, with how chaotic individuals are I find it an amazing miracle that governments are as peaceful and stable as they are. Which no doubt stems from the conspicuous effort of people involved. So while it's a sometimes a common narrative to sledge governments, for a number of reasons only some of which I touch on here, I feel a more balanced view of them is clearer. And without a clear view, how can we operate effectively? None of which is to say that there aren't plenty of opportunities to create improvements in governments, a fact which, given the stakes, seems surprising more startups aren't magnetically drawn to it. An important point is I feel one reason contributing to lack of sexiness of government for startups is incorrect stories about government that we are inclined to tell. I basically think that ordinary people don't reason usefully about power, because they feel it's something somewhat incomprehensible to them, so they fallback to tools like the fake hero villain story above, comfortable "creation" myths which seem to explain the world, and actually may not. This lack of widespread useful conceptual tools for thinking about government and power may be one reason contributing to the dearth of government startups, if there is such a lack! Thanks for your comment, I hope you also got something out of this, I appreciate the opportunity to touch on such ideas.