Conversation

He *said* the right things, including innovating/building but framing it as a new “Sputnik moment” was a mistake. A bureaucrat type mistake. You don’t inspire by pointing to the past.
Image
1
5
It was well-intentioned and the talks were interesting enough, but if it was meant to actually kick off the search for a new Sputnik Moment, it was frankly a joke. The wrong people were running it, with the wrong frame and the wrong invitees.
1
It was run like a routine DARPA or NSF program review type thing, just a bit fancier with better food. It was not even wrong as a Sputnik-moment hunt.
1
When I read about actual Sputnik moment type episodes in history, like for example Safi Bahcall’s Loonshots which includes an account of Vannevar Bush setting up the OSD/precursor to DARPA in WW2, it’s night and day.
1
1
A big part of the difference is indexing on current challenge and grilling it’s essence — the genius of the moment — rather than reaching for a similar sized past event to frame the present.
1
4
Another part is picking the right people to be in the room. A track record of ambition and accomplishment is necessary but not sufficient. They have to be more interested in the logic of the present than the inertia of their past accomplishments.
1
7
If you’ve ever been to a Big STEM meeting full of academics and program administrators and a sprinkling of industry types you’ll notice something. They’re all stuck in their own successful pasts and looking for ways to extend it into the future.
1
14
They’re usually in the room to try and get a slice of the new pie to extend their old program. Usually one set in motion on some vector a decade ago. They are literally not paying attention to the present at all. Depressing af. Not had people, just lost in their own worlds.
(wanted to wait out the predictable derpfest of the first techlashy news cycle so we can discuss the interesting bits after the hot take crowd moves on)
16