Hacker News Reader

Comment by Houshalter | Hacker News Reader

Most ambitious projects fail, period. Most startups don't succeed. I don't know if size is the issue.

I don't think a high failure rate even matters. If only 10% of billion dollar projects succeed, then spending $10 billion should get you something equivalent to a working human brain simulation. And hopefully at least something is learned from the failures. Even they don't succeed at building a human brain doesn't mean they don't learn anything.

View on HN

The interesting question for me is how to buy those 9/10 failures more cheaply. Can we get our $1 billion failures for only $100m each? Or even $10 million? Then we can buy a lot more successes.

I think the main barrier there, though, is that funders have to be in favor of interesting failure. With the described mega-science funding project, there's a big incentive to come up with dramatic plans that are novel and promise certain success.

I think the tech industry isn't perfect at this; we can all name companies that spent way too much money for what they learned. But our FFF/seed/A/B funding model gets us a good discount on interesting failures.

You've got no clue what you are talking about, do you? The thing is that many mega projects fail because of ridiculous reasons; mostly because high ranking people make dicisions outside the range of their expertise. Startup projects have very different characteristics and different stakeholders (i.e. mostly private). If 90% of the money could be saved then that's pretty bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com