[HN Gopher] New industries come from crazy people (2021) ___________________________________________________________________ New industries come from crazy people (2021) Author : jacobobryant Score : 32 points Date : 2022-12-31 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.palladiummag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.palladiummag.com) | RagnarD wrote: | "Crazy" here is just a euphemism for: Well out of the ordinary. | Should it be surprising that the ordinary, the mundane, the | average, the rock-no-boats, never accomplish great things? Why | would they? Those who're complacent about the world as it is - or | worse, sneeringly nasty at anyone stepping beyond the status quo | - have no ability to be a Henry Ford or a Nikola Tesla or an Elon | Musk. Why would such minds be limited to just building a | business? Of course they aren't ordinary. | napierzaza wrote: | [dead] | mikrl wrote: | I don't think they mean 'crazy' in the mentally ill sense | because nothing could be a bigger detriment to leadership than | the irrational outbursts associated with manic episodes and the | crushing inability to function associated with depressions. | | Although Elon Musk likes his LSD or so I've heard, and a 'trip' | is basically a self induced euphoric psychosis which can be | compared to a schizophrenic episode. | croes wrote: | >the ordinary, the mundane, the average, the rock-no-boats | | Most great things are accomplished by them, often by teams of | them. They don't just run around and brag about their success. | | For instance Polio wasn't nearly eradicated by people like | Musk, it where hard working ordinary people. | | BTW most of the things attributed to Musk are done by his | employees, the ordinary guys who never accomplish great things | /s | honkler wrote: | is this supposed to be a surprising insight? | amelius wrote: | "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable | one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore | all progress depends on the unreasonable man." | | -- George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman | worldsavior wrote: | Finally someone says it. Always felt like it. | kosasbest wrote: | Something often said: 'We don't use the word crazy around here'. | I'm sorry but bandying around that word is vague and misleading. | Authors really need to be more specific. This is why we have | distinct terms like ADHD, Neurodiverse, Eccentricity, etc. | johndhi wrote: | Disagree. Seems like a useful word and the article title | conveys its meaning quite well. The multiple interpretations of | 'crazy' are exactly what makes the title interesting. Crazy | looney or crazy like a fox? | [deleted] | andai wrote: | I think the gist is that people who think differently are often | thought insane, but are also disproportionately the ones who | will stumble upon new and useful ways of doing things. | lkrubner wrote: | Consider the agricultural revolution of the early 1700s, Charles | Townshend, walking around after his cows, noting every poop, | taking detailed notes about every poop, and then a year later, | what grew where that poop was, and what were the cows eating when | they created that poop? His neighbors certainly regarded him as | eccentric, having such a fascination with poop. And yet the whole | modern world is indebted to him for his odd obsession. And | likewise, Jethro Tull's obsession with designing a machine that | could replace the workers his father and grandfather had worked | with. | taeric wrote: | I get a large distaste in my mouth when reading pieces like this. | Supposed "crazy" people can be found everywhere if you expand | your definition enough. Passionate, would work as well. Somehow | contriving that the "crazy" ones are the ones that successfully | expand and create industries feels way too selection biased. | Especially since there is nothing learnable from the examples | that are picked. | | Worse, it ends with: America was not always | the only country that permitted breakthrough industrialists to | build unproven new industries and upend the economic order, but | it is today. | | Which is at sharp odds with every story of how expensive | construction is in the US compared to what we call developing | nations. Or nations that typically give wider authority to the | government builders than the US does. | twblalock wrote: | Construction costs are only one aspect of the US economy. | | Silicon Valley would not have happened elsewhere. Neither would | the dot-com era, or a viable electric car industry (proved out | by Tesla). Every FAANG is American and their only viable | competition is in China. | | I don't know what the next transformative industry is going to | be, but I'd be shocked if it came from a risk-averse place like | Western Europe. | taeric wrote: | Faang is definitionally American. :) | | Silicone valley would probably also not be possible with | modern regulations. But... That has a name. Regulatory | capture is far from new. And doesn't require crazy people. | | Looking at tech and ignoring how much brain and money power | was thrown at nuclear technology is doing a disservice to why | the US was so far ahead in many fields for a long while. | WalterBright wrote: | The success of FAANG in America is, in large part, due to a | lack of regulation of the software industry. | | For example, I don't need a license to write software, or | sell it. I don't need any signoff from regulators. Nor is | there a cottage industry of suing software developers. There | are no laws specifying how the software is written. | sneak wrote: | * some kinds of unproven new industries (excluding | construction/housing) | | As someone who has a US passport, loves cities, and lives half | the year in the US, this is particularly frustrating to me. It | seems that no matter how wealthy or powerful you become, it's | still basically illegal to build innovative things on land you | own in the US (anywhere near other people). | tw98521358 wrote: | That's true in most countries, you need to pay off government | officials/protection. That can either be done legally or | illegally but it has to be done. | echelon wrote: | > how expensive construction is in the US | | We're in a pit of success. Our workers cost a lot, and that's | generally a good thing. | | We could lighten regulations and import immigrant workers, but | the real turnaround will be when automation finally teaches | construction. AGI or robotics or whatever. Give it 50 years and | costs will come right back down. | taeric wrote: | Sorta? My understanding is most of the cost is in regulatory | compliance, combined with less exercise of imminent domain. | | That is, construction was cheaper back when we had no regard | for the people that owned or had interest in the land we were | constructing on. The so called "spite mounds" of the Seattle | regrade are a good example. Some were literally for an owner | that was out of town. Not sure that kind of crap should fly. | mkl95 wrote: | With the current interest rates and inflation, those people will | also need to be well off to even get started. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-31 23:00 UTC)