FD3SA

Jeff Bezos famously said that smart people often change their minds [2]. I would encourage Thiel to challenge many of his deeply held beliefs about the history and nature of scientific and technological progress, and empirically compare our current system with that of the past. Especially if he wants to see cancer cured (!!!!) in the next decade (!!!!).

Thiel and his colleagues have a unique opportunity to set mankind back on our path of scientific and technological discovery. But in order to do this, we have to thoroughly understand the environment and factors which nurture scientific progress. With NIH and NSF funding in freefall, and corporations cutting R&D spending across the board, I would argue we are moving in precisely the wrong direction. Crowdfunding won't cure Cancer, and neither will startups. These are very hard problems, that take a very long time to solve.

Round up some VCs and fund a dozen Janelia Farms for the next 20 years. Only then can we talk about human longevity as a long term goal.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837

2. https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-be...

Costly mistakes.

http://spacexstats.com/mission.php?launch=19

I know I'll be glued to the livecast for this one. If this works, it'll be the greatest (early) Christmas present of all time.

I've had this impulse my entire life, yet the economics of doing a PhD are so dystopian that the urge passes after a few minutes of rational thinking. So, what is HN's answer to the decline of institutional science? Projects like this will take decades, so crowdfunding is out.

A dozen Janelia Farms with long term funding from VCs would be great right about now.

The reality is that these are manufactured issues (pay-gap, rape epidemic, etc.) in order to create voter blocks which can then be counted upon in an election. Women are 50% of the population. If you can somehow convince them to vote as a group, you've won the game of democracy forever. This has been an open strategy of the Obama campaign since '08.

What's fascinating is how insane statements such as "1 in 4 women have been raped" get touted as fact. It is mass dementia, much worse than any religion or mass delusion. If 1 in 4 women were raped, the US would be equivalent to the Congo where rape was used as a weapon of war. Women wouldn't be doing "Slut Walks" and "Take Back The Nights". They'd be fearing for their lives and staying indoors.

We've had democracies collapse in upon themselves quite often in the past due to corruption and vote rigging. It may be an inevitable consequence of this form of governance. For reference, I don't live in the US, but I find the militant electioneering fascinating.

EDIT: It appears the parent was flagkilled. Although his delivery may have been slightly uncouth, his argument was valid. For those interested, the parent was expressing his opinion that sex is irrelevant as a determinant of engineering ability and economic success, and asserting that sex ratios in tech companies must be precisely 50/50 is nonsensical because it ignores individual preferences and biological reality.

Alas, we are but a bunch of hominids scrambling in the dark in fear of the world in which we find ourselves. If we get too close to an idea that can burn us, most of us scurry away back to the comfortable dark.

That is except for a few insane pioneers, who embrace the flames even at the cost of their own safety...

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven...

Do the excellent lectures he's put online to help millions of students suddenly become illegal material, akin to child pornography?

I find it ironic how the new "politically correct" legions behave increasingly like a subversive fascist movement. "Incorrect" thoughts and opinions become illegal taboos, and alleged "criminals" are assumed guilty without trial.

The irony resulting from the escapades of these so called "social justice warriors" would be comical, if the results weren't so tragic. Walter Lewin's lectures are an incredible resource for the entire world. Taking them down because of alleged misconduct is the height of absurdity. MIT is harming millions of students worldwide who don't have access to any other resources.

The time has come to stop these modern witch trials, and return to a sane legal process. Particularly, innocence until proven guilty.

Precisely. You've correctly identified the irrational non-technical prejudice the financial industry may have towards someone such as yourself. The only solution is to become their competitor. You'd be surprised how easy it is to beat incompetent corporations at their own game. If it can be done with multi-stage rockets, it can be done with hedge funds.

Hence why we're all united here as fans of PG's essays on HN. Welcome aboard, and god speed in your entrepreneurial ventures.

"Give me an overview of a numerical method used to solve differential equations."

The more time you spend asking brainteasers, the less time you have to devote to your actual skills of interest. You may even find that quizzing someone on mathematics may help refresh and solidify your own understanding.

You will be astonished at how different the two can be.

Nobody here is saying the YC and VC community are all evil super-villians. But as PG's essay and your views here indicate, there may be a startlingly shallow understanding of the nuances of human behavior in the YC community as a whole.

Techies such as ourselves tend to be very optimistic and trusting people. We always give our friends the benefit of the doubt when we can. But you and PG are seemingly taking this way, way too far in spite of mountains of contrary evidence (and I'm talking evolutionary biology, not just anecdotal).

Humans are primates who form status hierarchies and ruthlessly enforce them via any means necessary. This includes power asymmetry, extortion, bribery, status signaling, and a whole host of others nasty behaviors (watch Game of Thrones for the full gamut). That PG and yourself apparently deny this basic biological fact for a certain group (i.e. YC founders) does not make it less true.

I have to disclaim here that I'm a huge fan of yours Paul, and I know much about the incredible struggles you've faced in life. I know the only way to move forward is to be relentlessly positive, and this is also my own personal philosophy. However, part of being a rational person is trying to see the empirical world for what it is, not what we want it to be. I think this is the only thing PG is guilty of; He wants founders to be above average in altruism, when the reality may be the opposite.

All the best, and forever a fan.

http://youtu.be/bKGhvKyjgLY?t=37m59s

All the details are in the linked video by HP's Stan Williams. Definitely worth a watch if you're interested in the future of computing

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKGhvKyjgLY (start at 38m for future computing implications)

EDIT:

Another video [2], but a bit more in depth. Recommended if the material in the first was a bit confusing as Stan was short on time to explain some of the details.

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFdDPzcZwbs

Price doesn't always translate to quality. In many cases, it's pure status signalling. Many luxury fashion brands operate in this manner.

Europe has very strict vacation policy (mandated 5-6 weeks), healthcare benefits and employee protections (hours worked, overtime pay, etc). I wonder why that is? Western Europe isn't exactly a developing region. Maybe they realized that you can't give employers all the power and expect them to act benevolently at the expense of profit.

American work laws are dystopian. Being an employee in the USA is sheer stupidity. PG says as much during his essays. I always find the "Who's hiring" threads comically ironic on HN.

We're here not to be employees, but to become entrepreneurs.

Somehow I doubt that currency conversion is the most sophisticated issue. The nuclear-powered dictatorship is also going to require a few brainstorm sessions.

Humans are primates which form natural status hierarchies, and will do so in a vacuum absent any forcing function. This makes our behavior far more predictable, and far more deterministic.

Most people assume that humans are a transcendent organism. In truth, we are the only organism that know precisely what we are, but have managed to fool ourselves otherwise. Darwin himself [1] understood the ramifications of evolution on human behavior, and was very conflicted by it.

The only way to truly transcend is to first understand precisely what we are, and our own weaknesses and susceptibilities. Only then can we form societies and habits to prevent our worst behaviors from destroying us.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selecti...

With Blackberry's impending demise, we won't have any large safety net companies for people to turn to when their startups fail. We need some companies with enough potential and backbone to grow big and refuse to be acquired.

All the best to Thalmic Labs, I'm rooting for you guys.

So are laws. Your right to kill me is impeded by the justice system's threat of force to imprison you as a result. This is where most rational people come to understand that personal freedoms must be limited for the sake of peaceful co-operation.

But good luck establishing your Utopia without Laws and Taxes. I look forward to reading about it in the news.

One the one hand, we have a female who has a very accurate understanding of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and logic. Her arguments are logically coherent and validated by centuries of empirical science.

On the other hand, we have a male who has violated Occam's Razor so many times that he has completely annihilated any hope of a coherent hypothesis. His arguments imply conspiracy theories behind the formation of family, society, government, and history itself. All reason is abandoned, and science ignored.

Now the question is...does it really matter which position the male took vs. the female? One of these arguments is far more coherent than the other. Which position an individual supports reveals far more about the person than about the true nature of sexual dimorphism, since the laws of the universe do not suddenly change to cater to the opinions of a few misinformed primates.

EDIT: Hello tctapek! Thanks for the downvote. In case you one day want to educate yourself about the science behind human biology (and its numerous resultant consequences), here are a few books you'll no doubt find elucidating:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Animal

For some advanced reading, you can move onto the Extended Phenotype by Dawkins, and the references contained therein.

Enjoy, and remember, the world is yours to discover! Science will always be waiting.

EDIT 2: If you lack the patience for all that, here (http://edge.org/memberbio/helena_cronin) is an expert in the field who explains all of imanaccount247's assertions in video format. Enjoy!

The world today runs on profit and productivity. Morals, ethics and philosophies are irrelevant hindrances, as SV and Wall St. have demonstrated repeatedly. This is all well and good, as the last century apparently demonstrated that all ideologies and philosophies are the devil incarnate (Nazism, Leninism, Maoism, etc.)

But I do wonder one thing...did we quit on ideology prematurely? An ideology which I've always held as my own mission in life is the relentless pursuit of knowledge through science.

Throughout history, there have been times where mankind has focused intently on this goal, and the results were incredible. Sadly, most of these periods were spurred on by major wars.

What I really want to know is this:

Is it possible to built a society whose goal is the advancement of mankind's knowledge?

The profit motive and the free market are undoubtedly the best motivators for mankind, due to our evolutionary predispositions for survival and inherent need to establish status hierarchies. But could we not harness these energies, and direct them to positive-sum endavors such as science and engineering research, rather than a pure profit-driven battle to the death?

Keep in mind, the historical mean society throughout history has been oligarchy. It appears the last century was a brief respite due to massive wars and resultant existential threats. We now seem to be heading right back into the oligarchical paradigm of rich get richer, and poor stay serfs [1].

I can envision a society built around the pursuit of knowledge. The market exists and is regulated to produce needs and wants efficiently, yet without negative-sum behavior (regulatory capture, corruption, anti-competitive conduct, wage fixing, etc.) Education and research are a prime government mandate in addition to infrastructure, defense, healthcare and a social safety net. Citizens are incentivized to hone their skills and education continuously without massive financial downsides (student debt). State sponsored research institutes exist throughout the country similar to Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, JPL, etc. and serve to stimulate the economy through constant research projects, both large and small. The projects provide jobs for low and high skilled individuals (e.g. ITER, LHC). Those who enjoy pure research have a plethora of opportunities to move the state of the art forward. Those who don't, have excellent and rewarding employment.

The challenge in creating this society is a very tough one: humans are not motivated by knowledge. We are motivated by status, sex, and power, though few ever understand it or admit to it. But I hope that one day, knowledge of our inherent weaknesses will become common enough such that we can fight our destructive natures in an effort to transcend our limitations.

Till that day, I remain a dreamer.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Cen...

This means that, if a crime is committed and evidence exists to prosecute, the Attorney General may stay proceedings to protect the economy.

This is an incredible and fascinating development in the American Capitalist Democracy. As far as I understand, there is no precedent for such logic in any democratic legal system. A corporation that is so vital to the nation that it is immune from legal consequence cannot exist in a capitalist democracy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this new system is very reminiscent of the mean human society throughout history: oligarchy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3zwhp5-jXA

Both quitting your job and engaging in a startup are absurdly risky if you don't have a very cushy safety net.

Steve jobs was a hippie who was fine with living homeless and dumpster diving for food, so there was no downside for him in screwing around with startups. Paul Graham completed his PhD in CS from Harvard, so he had a very solid alumni network he could turn to if he ever found himself unemployed. Bill Gates and Zuck both went to Harvard and had trust funds and/or wealthy parents.

The stories you're often told of successful entrepreneurs usually leave out one important fact: to be successful, you must eliminate downside risk. Once failure costs you nothing, then it's just a matter of how big your upside can be. You want to get into a position where failure is irrelevant. That's the only way you can fail fast, and fail often.

I recommend cutting your costs down to the absolute bare minimum and investing every penny you earn. Try to establish a steady income from consulting and/or investments. Passive income and cost minimization are the keys to freedom and success in the modern economy.

You mentioned that you're worried about dating. That's a whole other can of worms. I would say focus on dating while you're working on the preparation phase (passive income/cost minimization). Once you start engaging in startups, you may not have the time.

Good luck, and remember: only show up to battles that you're likely to win. Stack the odds in your favor. The more you leave to chance, the riskier a venture becomes.

Try explaining to them why you have a degree in Electrical Engineering but work as a Data Scientist. My friend tried, and it would be funny if it didn't almost cost him his job. He literally got in due to a shred of mercy caused by his girlfriend's tears at the possibility of a refused visa.

The USA sometimes feels like a dystopian nightmare, mainly populated with idiotic yes-men and ruled by Machiavellian bureaucrats. There are a few niche ecosystems that are impressive, but they are by far the minority.

And this is wrong, why? Post-modernism is at the heart of the entire "equalist" movement precisely because it ignores the scientific process of modernism.

It begins with an a-priori assumption: racial and sexual representation in all disciplines must be in proportion to the population. If the representations are even slightly off, there is discrimination, racism and sexism. Proponents of this line of thought then look for statistics and conjure up conspiracy theories to explain these deviations from their own asserted optimum.

This line of thought is absurd to anyone with basic training in scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, scientific literacy is a rarity in the modern world which was built by it.

Ignoring for a minute that post-modernism is an absurd philosophy based on the denial of empirical science, how is this in any way productive? Would it not make more sense to focus on an employee's skills and experience, rather than their genetic and ethnic backgrounds?

It is increasingly obvious due to the irrationality of these initiatives that this is indeed a form of political posturing, and nothing more.

Ironically, a community of entrepreneurs such as HN would pay the highest price for ignoring empirical evidence in favor of political posturing. Small companies can't trade political posturing for special treatment by the government. That practice is firmly reserved for established monopolies such as Amazon.

Big science/engineering is very expensive, very long term and very risky. No one wants to foot the bill. Not corporations, not investors, and recently not even governments (NIH/NSF funding cuts, etc.).

I discuss this further here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837

As a matter of fact, science should be privately funded and privately run. What idiot thought it was a good idea to make scientific research a government mandate?

To thy weary, I say: The market shall provide.

P.S. Yes, I am bitter about the current state of science. I've written about it in great detail before [1][2], but the current fascination with free-market everything has truly made me lose hope for this iteration of society. The free market will work, until it doesn't. Some activities which are absolutely crucial, will not be profitable until it's too late. Medical research is a good example, but there are others (energy sources to replace oil, overproduction of consumer waste, pollution etc.)

Seems like today's societies must learn by sticking their fingers in the proverbial wall socket. So be it.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837

2. https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/by%3AFD3S...