Molson Hart

Why should innovation progress at a steady rate at the macro level? It doesn't at the micro level. It's not even possible to compare innovation between eras - too hard. People chase what makes money at the time and for the past 30-40 years it's been bits, not atoms.

There's nothing wrong with that. Maybe in 30 years all the bits opportunities will have disappeared and we can go back to atoms. And then, Greg, it's not like you're helping with your latest startup ;-)

Haha :) in all seriousness i do think there is a lot to innovate in the software realm, especially in the infra which is both crucial and underhyped. But again, i wasnt really talking about atoms vs bits, more like innovation in all areas (atoms, bits, political ideas etc).

Yeah maybe testosterone levels or something have fallen in our population. Too much birth control in the water. I don't know. That said, there are a lot of cool things happening at the margins that people don't talk about enough: Bitcoin, mobile biking/scooters, int'l e-com

self-driving cars, AI...I dunno...not sure we're just doing dumb apps (though certainly many are.)

I mean its certainly not zero. But people do talk a lot about bitcoin and self driving cars and AI a lot, no? And yeah of course we cant decide this objectively. But for me when the laziest ideas can get 10m in funding thats a sign of lack of creativity.

Not enough creativity or too much money chasing an increasingly elusive return?

Both, the supply demand trade off shifted. Next question, why is the return so elusive?