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'.https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1222631434235473920 …
-
-
Replying to @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
3 replies 3 retweets 51 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @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.
1 reply 3 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @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.
1 reply 12 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
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.
8 replies 4 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @DavidDeutschOxf
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.5 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
(This is sort of a shadow argument for having some non-trivial percent of the funding for some field come from individuals, not because they'll be as competent as e.g. professional capital allocators or a government funding agency but *precisely because they won't be.*)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes
(Like, if you're looking for funding close to the edge of human knowledge, you should want non-zero someones capable of writing a check to a project with an underdeveloped proposal, a seeming misunderstanding of basic science, and perhaps X0% likelihood of being outright fraud.)
-
-
(The right number of frauds to fund is not zero!)
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @patio11 @DavidDeutschOxf
Yeah. They're likely a signal that you're doing things right. (Asking people the difference between Keurig and Juicero is instructive. They often flounder, despite Juicero "obviously" being "a bad idea".)
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.