Comment by nottathrowaway3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nottathrowaway3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nottathrowaway3

I meant strategically important according to the government.

From the 2022 NSS (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-...)

> Technology

> Technology is central to today’s geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy and democracy. U.S. and allied leadership in technology and innovation has long underpinned our economic prosperity and military strength. In the next decade, critical and emerging technologies are poised to retool economies, transform militaries, and reshape the world... our technology strategy will enable the United States and like-minded democracies to work together to pioneer new medicines that can cure diseases, increase the production of healthy foods that are sustainably grown, diversify and strengthen our manufacturing supply chains, and secure energy without reliance on fossil fuels, all while delivering new jobs and security for the American people and our allies and partners. With bipartisan support, we have launched a modern industrial strategy and already secured historic investments in clean energy, microelectronics manufacturing, research, and development, and biotechnology, and we will work with Congress to fully fund ...

> We also are doubling down on our longstanding and asymmetric strategic advantage: attracting and retaining the world’s best talent. Attracting a higher volume of global STEM talent is a priority for our national security and supply chain security, so we will aggressively implement recent visa actions and work with Congress to do more.

> These investments will enable the United States to anchor an allied techno-industrial base that will safeguard our shared security, prosperity and values.

I'm not sure Calendly is necessarily central to the articulated strategy. And I agree that most tech companies don't produce much of value at all.

But the administration seems to think the future direction for the U.S. is tech, especially energy and military tech. And it begs the question: if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China?

> if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China?

I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here.

Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model.

If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.

> If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.

Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there.

> socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations

Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have

Uber -- a model for work orchestration

Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology

Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology

No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things.

I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.

> Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there.

Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.

> non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies

The same problem plagues all of these models: they're hierarchical and top-heavy. Having worked at traditional companies and having considered a career in academia; there's a reason these organizations get outboxed.

Innovation requires risk and investment. How are any of these three an effective model of risk? Big companies will invest without taking risk, research organizations and academia will take risks without investing, and branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov).

> The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour

Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want, but there are widely-known systemic issues with all of these alternative structures that makes them ineffective.

> and will again

Only if you create a walled garden where they are the only competitor. Obviously the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick. For rocketry, semiconductors, etc. (i.e., fields which require large upfront capital investment) these alternative investment models fare better.

> Big companies will invest without taking risk

Why do we think this is? Might it be because big companies would actually have to face consequences when big, dumb risks fail?

> research organizations and academia will take risks without investing

Not sure where you get this idea

> branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov)

I'm not sure if healthcare.gov is a great example, since IT for the site was almost entirely run by private contractors. Before corporate lobbying was able to handcuff essentially any public innovation effort, the government routinely funded massively successful innovation projects (civilian aviation, the internet, microchips, satellites, AI, barcodes, touch screens - including the company bought by apple, nearly all devices and drugs/vaccines used in modern medicine, list could go on forever basically).

> Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want

I will, since once again, we've seen all of the alternatives be successful without nearly as many downsides.

> the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick

I'm not convinced. Largely the current model wins because it sidesteps regulations and gets away with anticompetitive, antisocial behavior and risky financialization under the guise of innovation. If it was true innovation, the world wouldn't be becoming a worse place every day that SV was essentially handed the keys. Our kids wouldn't be more depressed, climate change would be addressed, public health crises would be solved. What we have is a bunch of people scrambling trying to impress upon people that they have all the answers, when they do not.

I'm also not convinced that the answer to everything lies in the internet. Nearly all of our savings has gone to funding companies that do a thing that existed, but on the internet, rather than funding real innovation.

> Nearly all of our savings has gone to funding companies that do a thing that existed, but on the internet, rather than funding real innovation.

Man, if my money was forcibly tied up in some bullshit pension fund that mainly invests in VCs, I would be pissed, too.

Investment should be controlled by the people whose money it is. Corporate 401k plans are much more flexible which is probably why we have such a difference of opinion here.

I am a public market investor only. If I had the capital and the time to diversify maybe only then would I consider private markets.

> If it was true innovation, the world wouldn't be becoming a worse place every day that SV was essentially handed the keys. Our kids wouldn't be more depressed, climate change would be addressed, public health crises would be solved

I disagree here. The world sucked in these same ways before the internet and it will continue to suck after. True innovation from the government's perspective is increasing its control of citizens and the efficiency of their labor by any means necessary.

> True innovation from the government's perspective is increasing its control of citizens and the efficiency of their labor by any means necessary.

I'd be curious how you justify this when the U.S. (largely agreed-upon to be the most corporate-friendly first-world country over the past 50 years or so) has the largest police-state, prison population, military, etc etc etc. Other economies where the government isn't essentially an arm of the corporate world are much freer. It's almost as if when governments are actually democratically elected (rather than representatives being filtered through the money primary), governments tend to represent the interests of the people.

> I'd be curious how you justify this when the U.S. (largely agreed-upon to be the most corporate-friendly first-world country over the past 50 years or so) has the largest police-state, prison population, military, etc etc etc

The U.S. has been the leader in all those lovely statistics long before tech became the biggest thing in the economy.

I think you missed my point. I simply don't believe in fetishizing "true" (and therefore "untrue") innovation. We live in a messy world. Innovation is just a culturally-loaded way to describe people optimizing things. I miss the 90s and 00s too, man.

Also I agree with you.

> I simply don't believe in fetishizing "true" (and therefore "untrue") innovation.

I don’t think there’s a hard obvious line, but if I invent a machine that can take $1 from every other American’s wallet and put it into mine I am quite comfortable calling that “untrue” innovation.

When thousands of companies have opaque versions of this business model, you notice it on a macro level

That is literally every business in history. The innovation is how they choose to get that dollar.

No some businesses do things like create value. You can take a dollar or you can sell something worth a dollar. Those are not the same

When DoorDash puts themselves as a delivery service front end for restaurants without them knowing, and then raises the prices, that is simply legally stealing money. The restaurant, on the other hand, actually sells something of value.

If they don't create value, why do people pay for it? And by your logic, isn't Google doing the same thing for website owners.

There's more nuance to these issues that you suggest. The U.S. government is investing in tech for various legitimate strategic reasons you can read about. Government bureaucracies historically fail to produce (or contract) good products for reasons you can observe by working at one (or by reading Dilbert). Many tertiary sector businesses are indeed just middlemen but still create value in a more complex way.

I get it that tech can be criticized in the way you're doing it. This discussion had been had thousands of times on this site. I have nothing to contribute besides what I already said, and even all of that had probably been said thousands of times as well.

> If they don't create value, why do people pay for it?

How much would you pay for a machine that steals a dollar out of everyone else in the world’s pocket? Maybe you’re a good person and the answer is not much but I’d guess most people would pay, say, 7 billion for it.

If you’re asking about DoorDash specifically, people pay because they think that’s the price. It still damages the restaurant’s reputation, lowers their order numbers, etc. it’s legal stealing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com