|
@michael_nielsen | |||||
|
I call this Groucho's law: you should never work on any project for which can get funding. Tongue-in-cheek, but there's a grain of truth to it: the easier funding is to get, the more likely something like it would have happened anyway.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
David Deutsch
@DavidDeutschOxf
|
30. sij |
|
Yet instead of doing what would be fun, and thereby maybe solving stuff, people do what they're told they 'must', or what they think they 'should'. twitter.com/webdevMason/st…
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
30. sij |
|
Was reflecting on a related thought earlier: my income over the years has typically been anti-correlated with the social value of whatever I'm doing. (There are exceptions). I don't think this is unusual at all: the labor market for creative work seems mindbogglingly inefficient
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
30. sij |
|
This seems intrinsic: the greatest creative opportunity lies where institutions (inc. the labor market) fears to tread. To some extent they're valuable opportunities _because_ institutions won't operate there.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
30. sij |
|
Hmm, flipping that about: if you want to be a useful funder, maybe you should never fund a project that anyone else in the world would fund.
Which sounds nuts, but has the benefit you're sure any impact was additional.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Patrick McKenzie
@patio11
|
30. sij |
|
A thing I feel moderately strongly about and hope to experiment with eventually: the first $X for some X which funders broadly consider is not just too low to matter but too low for them to even *contemplate a funding decision* would unblock stupendous amounts of value.
|
||
|
|
||