shahryc

this was the best resource for Philosophy 101!

good call re: spoiler alert, sorry about that

"It’s only six episodes in, so you’d be excused if you haven’t heard of it yet. And it’s on USA, which is an even better excuse to not have heard of it. "

"Since then, the program has largely been presented to the public only through posts on government surveillance/conspiracy forum..." ------ I guess the conspiracy theorists weren't that crazy after all.

I strongly disagree with your assertion. The real question is —— all things being equal (equivalent monetary amount, recruitment pool, legitimacy, etc.), for a given start-up today: would it be better to join YC or a given universities partnership program for start-ups?

I truly believe it would be better to join YC for the following reasons:

1) Capital. In terms of capital resources. YC will most likely be able to help raise a given start-up more many than a university because the primary purpose of YC is that, while that is not the case for universities.

2) Cross-disciplinary expertise. Granted this may be an advantage that universities have over YC. But, it’s much easier to recruit faculty as YC venture backed start-up than as a non-YC venture backed start-up, unless there are contractual obligations that skew incentives towards the universities themselves.

3) SBIR/STTR. SBIR stands for Small Business Innovation Research, while STTR stands for Small Business Technology Transfer. They are both congressionally mandated programs so that “….domestic small businesses can engage in R&D that has a strong potential for technology commercialization.” Nothing precludes a given start-up from not getting SBIR/STTR funds. In fact, an organization like YC helps bolster the case that the technology in question can be commercialized.

4) Scientific/technical credibility and legitimacy. Yes, YC is not a research university, and will not bring that level of “scientific/technical” credibility and legitimacy. But, they do offer credibility and legitimacy for partners, users, VCS, etc. In addition, most founders that are tackling a scientific/technical problem, usually have experience in that field, and bring a degree of scientific/technical expertise.

5) Bleeding-edge equipment that cannot be purchased. The cost/quality/risk really depends on the industry. For example, contract-research organizations (CROs) are common place for big companies and small companies throughout the pharmaceutical industry. In this case, CROs play the function that a university would in conducting/publishing the research.

"Why give half of the money you raise to your university when you can rent lab space for hundreds of dollars a month?" --- very good point!

I was expecting the exact opposite. Very cool!

"Members of this year’s graduating class left their campuses owing an average of $35,051, about twice the levels borne by their counterparts two decades earlier (after adjusting for inflation)."

"Collectively, a16z says, these three trends will lead to an 'explosion' of experimental biology and digital health startups..."

"...announced a line of GaN transistors and power electronic circuits that promise to cut energy usage in data centres, electric cars, and consumer devices by 10 to 20 per cent worldwide by 2025."

awesome!

"Cheat, Lie, and Steal" --- they've merely redefined the rules in their own favor, and in the long run I believe that's a good thing because they'll be able to compete with YouTube. YouTube is essentially a monopoly. This sort of competition is a good thing for both content creators & consumers. It gives content creators more leverage in negotiations/royalties & consumers more content, different features, etc.

"USA did a survey when our show premiered, targeting millennials, and asked if they could go back in time and start over, would they join Facebook. And I think, overwhelmingly, most people said no, which is great."

In reference to the YC Fellowship, Altman said, "If this works, I ‘d like to scale it quickly to a thousand a year.” (8:33)

Re: “Cowen is merely repeating the talking points of the propaganda campaign against the estate tax planned in the mid-90s…” Cowen’s argument is not the same.

1) Cowen is saying that the rich engage in tax avoidance. While, in the article Meagher is describing “how and why the estate tax became part of the pro-family agenda of social conservatives.”

(There’s a ton of data on it: see “Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/tax-avoidance_n_242...)

2) re: “This seems very speculative.” The point that I’m making is about the time value of money. (I’m not making a Reaganomics supply side argument.) My point is, a dollar before a death tax is worth a lot more than after the death tax --- there’s enormous evidence for that (and even without a death tax based on time value decay alone it is true.) Admittedly, I am assuming that rich people would rather not voluntarily give money to the government, even if they don’t want to give it to their heirs. (ie. The Giving Pledge the super rich make to philanthropy.)

This paradox is explainable because there's a gap in the signal. It usually takes a considerable amount of time/experience to specialize in high skill labor markets (ex. Doctor, lawyer, etc.) ---- therre is a gap in the signal (present vs. future). So, today there may not be enough workers that are familiar with designing chips for wearables (subset of hardware engineers). Then, because of limited supply --- prices go up. Other people see this, and are incentivized to train for the role (takes time, investment, etc.). So, there is always going to be some mismatch between positions employers want to fill vs. the existing pool of labor.

I think the idea that “Tech industry's persistent claim of worker shortage may be phony” seriously misses the point. First, since it usually takes a considerable amount of time to specialize in high skill labor markets (ex. Doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) ---- there is a gap in the signal (present vs. future). So, today there may not be enough workers that are familiar with designing chips for wearables (subset of hardware engineers). Then, because of limited supply --- prices go up. Other people see this, and are incentivized to train for the role (takes time, investment, etc.). Then, what usually down the road that causes such layoffs --- the industry changes and there’s more labor in that market because of the previous signal. This gap in the signal is a basic feature of such makrets, which makes the tech industry’s claim of worker shortage more likely true than not.

Although I understand your argument, I don’t think” 1) death taxes “ or 2) “Keeping necessities in life equal access” actually help maintain societal equality

re: death taxes, Tyler Cowen writes in the WSJ, “ It isn't clear that the estate tax raises much, if any, revenue. The very rich engage in tax-avoidance strategies. The apparent revenue raised is often offset by a lower intake from income and capital gains taxes. Furthermore, it has been estimated that the costs of implementing tax-avoidance strategies are roughly equal to the (gross) revenue raise.” But, even if this premise is not true (that there’d a positive net difference in the revenue raised), that’s assuming that the rich will maintain the same level of spending before they die, which may not be the case if they will get taxed on it when they die. In other words, the rich would have a greater incentive to spend it while they are alive, which merely increases consumption inequality.

re: Keeping necessities in life equal access. I agree on that point. But, I think it’s very difficult to achieve because of the complex factors that differentiate people in society. For example, in a given National Blue Ribbon School, there’s mix of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds that theoretically have equal access to educational resources the school provides. But, in practice, the educational resources that the school does not provide (at-home support, extended social networks, etc.) will be heavily correlated with a higher socioeconomic background.

The tools that are produced make SV innovative. Sometimes the tools are used for internet marketing (like Google) other times for energy saving (like Nest) --- or gambling (bitcoin blockchain-based betting). Now whether or not these tools could be used for good or bad, small problems or big problems, really depends on the person/team. Nonetheless, I disagree that there's an emphasis on "get-rich-quick pyramid schemes." More than anything, market forces (return on capital, profitability, etc.) play a strong role in determining the direction a concept will go.

"Facebook is developing advanced telecommunications, complete with autonomous laser-firing drones, and it is doing it as if it were a big software project." ---- pretty cool!