Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
David Deutsch 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'.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DavidDeutschOxf
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
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DavidDeutschOxf
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @DavidDeutschOxf
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Patrick McKenzie 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
A thing I feel moderately strongly about and hope to experiment with eventually: the first 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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @patio11 @DavidDeutschOxf i 2 ostali
I participated for a year or so in the Toronto (a production, among others). 10 people would each throw $100 into a pot each month, and we'd fund a $1k micro-grant. The first month we had, IIRC, 1,300 applicants. I'd guess 200+ were worthwhile.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
alice maz 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
isn't this another way of saying arbitrage opportunities don't exist? capital markets are highly inefficient for a whole host of reasons
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
alice maz 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
classic contrarian investment strategy is to get money into things that you believe will be huge before they are legible to anyone else, profit off the time lag. success derisks, others come in at higher price later
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Kaden Hazzard 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
Reminds me of Keck foundation - they explicitly ask to see your rejections from other agencies.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jason Crawford 30. sij
Isn't this pretty much 's rule already?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matt Guttman 30. sij
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
J❄️hn Harl❄️w 30. sij
Was told in a session w/DARPA they scour the world and fund only ideas they think no one else will deliver in the next decade.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Aharon Brodutch 30. sij
seem to be doing that. Or at least aiming to do it.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ben Reinhardt 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
This is one reason why the VC funding model isn't well-suited for funding quantum technological leaps: Most firms won't do a on their own.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"