As Kay himself has said so many times, this question is entirely about funding. With ARPA/IPTO-style funding, you get Kays (and Engelbarts, Minskys, McCarthys, Corbatós, etc) With VC and NSF, you don't. Even Kay hasn't been able to "be Kay" since the 80s: http://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/ …https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/946705788734787584 …
-
-
There are a lot of aspects to this, funding models are an issue, but probably the least. "A grand vision for the domain of computing" is practically impossible when talking of modern systems. No one truly understands computers from end to end these days.
-
And only a tiny part of the reason is the mediocrity in the field. Computers are now horribly complex beasts, trying to solve way to many problems that many would argue are not worth solving. However these are the ones whose solving attracts people.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think a big part is the time horizon, with corporate or VC backed research (almost always) wanting a financial return that won't wait for parc style 10-30 year visions
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I remember encountering Self at Texas A&M in 1995 and not a single professor knew how to guide any ideas I had following it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If it's just a question of funding structure, then you would think this kind of research culture could have been established elsewhere. There are lots of places in the world with differing approaches to public and private funding of research...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
