Modern use of the word ‘moonshot’ mocks Apollo
cacm.acm.org
cacm.acm.org
> Teller's pragmatic, iterative, product-driven approach to innovation is the exact opposite of what the U.S. did after Kennedy charged it to "commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." Letting Silicon Valley steal the term "moonshot" for projects with quite different management styles, success criteria, scales, and styles of innovation hurts our collective ability to understand just what NASA achieved 50 years ago and why nothing remotely comparable is actually under way today at Google, or anywhere else.
Worse, it is used to excuse and invent new practices that are not tried and true. Which is, ironically, exactly the opposite of how we got to the moon.
Public transportation, and how people move around a city?
Sure, it's scooters/bikes/cars/helicoptera for rent. But being ubiquitous and affordable makes it usable and in some cases even preferable than established solutions. That changes a lot of stuff. Heck, airbnb is just a middleman in renting deals, right?
It's an interesting article built on a flimsy premise IMO. Languages evolve, expressions evolve. It's like those people who insist that "3rd world countries" still should only refer to countries that weren't aligned during WWII.
A "moonshot" is generally used nowadays to describe a very ambitious project with high risks of failure. Nothing more and nothing less.
Still, I always enjoy reading about the Apollo project and the Space Race so once I got past the hair-splitting premise it made for an enjoyable read.
Social media in today's culture is almost built to destroy the meaning of words by overusing them for everything.
The big takeaway on this one, to me is that a moonshot is usually not just an ambitious project with a high risk of failure. No, a moonshot is typically an ambitious project with a high cost of success. There is a very big difference in that.
If you try and keep things low cost, then a moonshot is doomed to failure. If you are willing to set ambitious goals and pay whatever it takes to hit them, you have a solid chance of success.
The article takes issue with folks coopting a moonshot to say that it was nothing but clever people that succeeded against all odds. By that, some clever people use it as an excuse to play in projects that they think has a low chance of success. Hoping to find one where they are clever enough to beat chance.
Now, I confess this is appealing to me. I've been in teams where they tried to brainstorm a "moonshot" that would change the future. Note, they wanted to brainstorm it. Not to pay for it.
Far from enjoyment, I got pretty depressed by this. Advances in architectural engineering, improvements in materials science, ok? Is this what the country and world needs right now? Maybe I'm missing something, and the author is implying the skyscraper would be a giant methadone clinic!
The best part is that people are sensitive about topics that have nothing to do with them. Ask Buzz Aldrin what he thinks about "moonshot" he'll probably tell you he doesn't give a flying fuck. Let's call it outrage by proxy.
would probably get more funding that way..