[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)