Archive for April 2008
robot lovers and fearers alike need to see this
This is the first video I’ve ever seen of a robot doing this. So awesome I had to reblog it.
(Thanks to NewScientist, via pmarca.)
fred wilson’s outstanding “new path to liquidity” discussion
There’s an incredibly educational discussion in the comments of a blog post a couple of weeks ago over at Fred Wilson’s avc. I’m a little late to the party, I know, but that’s because it took some thinking and reading on it for the idea to sink in and resonate with me, which is often the case with ideas that really get in there and change how I think about something.
The main point is that some things about the startup/vc world are pretty broken, and a secondary market for shares in private companies is an interesting approach to fixing them that Fred brings up for discussion. Right now, vcs operate with some stringent constraints on how they can invest and what returns they need to see in what timeframe–see Marc Andreessen’s first post about vcs here for a good rundown. The paths to generating a sufficient return to the investors in new companies within the first few years are 1) to grow the company large enough to sell off part of the company in an IPO, which is hard and uncommon, especially when the public markets are taking a beating, like now, and which also legally requires the company to jump through all kinds of crazy hoops to guarantee regular citizens have the information they need to make an informed decision to invest in the company; or 2) to sell the entire company to an acquirer, usually private equity or a big company like Google or Microsoft in the tech world. So really, the main way right now for the initial investors and founders to not only get money but also retain ownership is IPO, which is operationally challenging, and next to impossible when the market for it is like it is right now. So what ends up happening instead is that the company gets bought, the founders and investors get paid, and the acquiring company usually doesn’t care quite as much about the bright future the company had as it does about integrating the technology, the users, and the technical team into its operations.
So it seems like one way to solve this quandary is to let new investors come in and buy a chunk of the company. The original vcs get paid a good chunk, so their investors are happy. The founders get paid a good chunk, and also retain ownership in the company, keeping them very vested in its future. The new investor gets the chance to buy stock, basically, in an incredibly awesome startup before anyone else, because it really understands the market and is willing to do its homework to make sure it’s a smart investment. Rather than getting rolled up into a big company, the startup remains independent and has the chance to continue to pursue the market-changing or world-changing long-term vision its founders had when they started it in the first place (at least I’d wager they had a pretty good vision, if the company did as well as we’re talking here).
So here’s Fred’s blog post again where all the discussions take place, and that discussion in and of itself is extremely educational. If you want to see how a really great vc, both performance-wise and mentality-wise, thinks about his job, scan down the page and read Fred’s comments and the surrounding discussions.
And here’s a link to the short version: a video interview Fred gave a couple days after the blog post briefly outlining the idea.
most thorough short guide ever to marketing a web company
Dave McClure is behind this. He knows what he’s talking about, it’s clear from how much he’s able to say with such a short and digestible presentation. Sure it’s simplifies a few things and takes some shortcuts, but you have to when you’re trying to organize something as big and fuzzy as the marketing strategy for an internet company into a 30-slide deck.
garden activism? what about activism in general?
I just read an interesting perspective in an article in the new york times magazine online advocating garden activism. I don’t have a ton of time to reflect on activism in general, but I wanted to take the opportunity to briefly discuss the writer’s opinions on what types of activism are best.
First why activism in the first place? The article gives one reason: the people to notice that something is wrong should take action themselves, otherwise no one will. Plus, politicians generally aren’t techno-experts, so they’re not going to realize something needs to change until either a group of experts or their constituents (ideally both) are banging on their door demanding it.
For us to wait for legislation or technology to solve the problem of how we’re living our lives suggests we’re not really serious about changing — something our politicians cannot fail to notice. They will not move until we do.
I agree that activism is necessary when there’s something wrong with the market, and the incomplete allocation of environmental costs into commodities and energy is the biggest example out there. Yvon Choinard’s book, Let My People Go Surfing, goes much farther in communicating the depth of the problem in environmental cost allocation, and ties this trouble directly to the need for activist companies and individuals to blaze a trail that others can learn from and follow. Not doing so is sort of like avoiding taxes by basing your company in the Bahamas once you’ve already benefited from the education and infrastructure present in the US to help you get your start. There’s nothing wrong with it per se, it’s just not as right as it could be.
Unfortunately, the article goes on to elaborate on how ‘garden activism’ is superior to other means of taking an active role in combating the current issue of people and companies ‘stealing’ from the environment (without realizing it of course).
The “cheap-energy mind,” as Wendell Berry called it, is the mind that asks, “Why bother?” because it is helpless to imagine — much less attempt — a different sort of life, one less divided, less reliant. Since the cheap-energy mind translates everything into money, its proxy, it prefers to put its faith in market-based solutions — carbon taxes and pollution-trading schemes. If we could just get the incentives right, it believes, the economy will properly value everything that matters and nudge our self-interest down the proper channels. The best we can hope for is a greener version of the old invisible hand. Visible hands it has no use for.
What I don’t like about this is that the article has glossed over the real trouble here–that environmental costs are not being completely allocated. When you realize this is the core of the problem, it doesn’t make sense to minimize the impact of ‘market-based solutions’. We can continue relying on markets if we look at what we have as a problem with the market. We just need to correct the market–to get the incentives right–so that companies and individuals can continue operating in their own best interest and continue to drive the progress that makes the world a better place to live.
Overall I think the point the article tries to make is great–planting a garden can really help you to reconnect with the world and understand firsthand that the earth takes care of us well as long as we return the favor, plus home-grown veggies are the best there are.
god and gold – a fantastic perspective on america’s roots and future
This book is outstanding, and if its principles were taught in American history classes instead of the smorgasbord of facts and dates and ideas taken out of their historical context, people would see America’s place in the world much more clearly. Honestly it made me feel like the basis for my opinions on how our country should be treating foreign policy went from ehh to decent, which I’d highly recommend to anyone. If you do start reading, be sure you don’t get bogged down in the details of England’s history in the past few hundred years, and focus more on how America’s view of what it is and what it stands for developed from that foundation. In the end, the outlook of our future is generally optimistic, with the author highlighting our incredible progress this past century and calling most of all for patience and some self-restraint in bringing our views and insights to parts of the world that need them.
Here’s a link to buy it at amazon. Or you can read my short 5-star review there.
what does a higher gdp get you? national influence, not citizen happiness
I was reading the leader in the 4/11 economist regarding america’s slowing growth, and the following line of the economist made me think about gdp, happiness, spending, etc: “spending will be supported by tax rebates in the second half of the year”. I feel like it relates to some things that umair (umair haque–see my blogroll) has discussed recently, though a lot of it comes from some of the ideas behind god and gold–that national influence comes first from economic strength.
Briefly, reading this statement made me go through the following connections, which I thought just passed the interestingness bar for something worth sharing.
- The government thinks consumer spending is good, and will give people money to spend when they see the economy (gdp growth) slowing.
- The reason they see consumer spending as a good thing is not out of any particular care for the happiness or well being of people in the short term, but it’s because they want the size of the economy to continue to grow, in terms of output and consumption.
- The reason they want output and consumption to grow is behind a lot of the discussion in god and gold as to how england realized that commerce was driving their ability to lead the world in military power and general influence.
- The more the country produces and consumes, the harder the country works in general, and even if the wealth decays (people buy crappy tvs at walmart that break in a year and get thrown away), people working harder means the government has more possibilities to accumulate and grow militarily, and it also means the government can use that economic turnover as leverage in dealing with other countries.
- This isn’t doing any good for the people in the country necessarily per se, except that it allows the country to have its way with the rest of the world, enforcing its values and interest.
Just to sum up, I’m not saying that I think economic growth and development is pointless (I think national influence can be and generally is a good thing) or harmful (unless it comes at the expense of peace, general prosperity, or other sources of value on a national or global scale). All things being equal, and as long as the costs of environmental damage and resource usage are properly allocated, which they currently aren’t, I think economic growth is fundamentally a very good thing, and that progress and technological development make the world a better place. But focusing only on national and world gdp, as currently measured, as our main measurement of progress doesn’t perfectly target what we really should value. We just need to be aware of where our metrics don’t line up with our true goals, and work to change and hone those metrics.
Please feel encouraged to drop a comment and let me know what you think.
austin city council in the process of actually trying to help barton springs
This is not to say that the city council has completely ignored Barton Springs in my lifetime so far here in Austin, but I can safely say that not enough has been done considering just how fantastic Barton Springs is, and how vital it is to me every time I rave to someone in another city about why they should at least visit.
There’s an article in the local paper today about a serious plan for improving and rehabilitating some aspects of the springs that the city actually paid money for–a great move, in my opinion. Some of the highlights:
1. Rehabilitate the steps and add native plants at Zilker Ponds
2. Renovate and reconfigure bathhouse to add a visitors’ center and return ticket sales to the rotunda
3. Renovate Eliza Spring amphitheater and reconnect the spring flow with the main body of the pool
4. Redesign an inlet grate to prevent clogging during floods; add openings to upstream dam to improve water flow
5. Add small south bathhouse and pave south parking lot
6. Study designs for skimmers to get rid of algae; remove gravel in pool’s deep end
7. Add two new stairways down to creekside and replace concrete embankments with stone
8. Rehabilitate stonework and salamander habitat at Sunken Garden
Some local groups quoted in the article sound like they don’t expect much good to come of any city action whatsoever, which rings familiar to me–in my memory they don’t often support any plan that they themselves didn’t first propose. Groups like Save Our Springs have a great mission, but I believe (and I apologize, but I’m not going to dig up their history for you right now to make my case) they often seem to lose a grip on making incremental improvements in favor of holding out for what they see as the perfect solution.
I’m just glad that, from the looks of it at least, the city is actually putting some money and brainpower into what I think is a big piece of what makes Austin one of the best cities out there, to visit or to grow up in.
photo props: city of austin
The Singularity and Kurzweil in Wired – must be something in the air
I just ordered Ray Kurzweil’s latest book, The Singularity is Near, a little over a week ago, on March 25, from amazon, and started reading it a couple days later. (amazon) Three days later, the content from the latest issue of Wired became available. I don’t read it regularly, but I may start soon. I just discovered today that this issue contains a 5 page article on Kurzweil and the singularity. If you haven’t heard of this, I have a feeling you will soon. Actually, you just did, but you’ll hear about it more. Here’s the basic gist of the term and how it originated, from the Wired article:
The word was first used to describe a crucial moment in the evolution of humanity by the great mathematician John von Neumann. One day in the 1950s, while talking with his colleague Stanislaw Ulam, von Neumann began discussing the ever-accelerating pace of technological change, which, he said, “gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue.”
In most people’s minds, computers won’t outpace human intelligence within our lifetimes. But in Kurzweil’s incredibly well-reasoned prediction, a reasonable date to expect a laptop computer to be more computationally powerful than a person is 2020, and we should be prepared for computers to be more intelligent than us in every way by 2045. The implications of reaching that point define the singularity. I’ll let you read more for yourself if you’re interested. Wikipedia has a good summary of both the technological singularity and Kurzweil’s history and predictions.
Fred Wilson on startups in the downturn: batten down the hatches
Fred Wilson, partner at Union Square Ventures, backer of Twitter et al, speaking mostly about the venture-backed startup world, examines some quotes from vcs floating around in the news concerning the effects of the current economic downturn. It’s clear that they’re taking it pretty seriously, even for innovative internet startups. To quote him,
in my mind, the single most important thing is not revenue in a time
like this. The most important thing is cost structure. Thomas Cole says
“smart companies are battening down the hatches”. That’s right.
I think it’s worth digesting all those comments, especially if you’re running a startup, and especially if that startup is bootstrapped. A downturn isn’t the time to throw in the towel for a bootstrapper. In fact, it can be a great time to start a company–the big guys are cinching up for the cold winter, which gives you some time to get in there and figure out the market first. It just makes you stay leaner, which means in the end you could emerge as a stronger, more efficient, and more profitable company. You just have to make it through the rough patch to see the sun on the other side.
Blake Borgeson, in blog form 