Society is obsessed with optionality and “keeping your options open.”
The problem is, it's optimizing for potential, not reality.
Everything great in life is on the other side of a few big commitments.
And commitment means going all in.
Not a single grifter, natural resources extractor, heir, or financial speculator.
Builders, innovators, who created unprecedented wealth for their employees, investors, and made expensive things accessible to everyone. Living proofs that this can be done in a single lifetime by working hard and smart
God bless capitalism and innovation
@DonaldMills142 Indeed. It’s not that good ideas aren’t important, they’re just overrated relative to implementation.
The IDEA of going to the Moon is EASY, but GOING to the Moon is HARD.
“We’ve done the analysis, reusable rockets aren’t economic.”
SpaceX makes reusable rockets economic.
“We’ve done the analysis satellite internet isn’t economic. The antenna alone is tens of thousands of dollars. The cost to manage a constellation that size, the radiation, the space hardened solar cost…”
Satellite internet appears to be a very good business with antennas in the $100 range.
“We’ve done the analysis, orbital data centers aren’t economic. The radiators, launch costs, the radiation, the solar…”
You are here.
@samgeorgegh You are correct - you have a country to build, not destroy
The agency under your purview has "Lorem Ipsum" on its website 😂 and your people couldn't even define "coding" when pressed
Perhaps you should listen to those who actually know what these things are
If you actually have the founder temperament, the former is much more stressful and taxing.
“In peaceful times, the warlike man attacks himself.” -Nietzsche
For the man of adventure born for the fray, the latter is the natural state of being.
Meanwhile most normal people find the latter exhausting or terrifying.
your job as a researcher, developer is to help your salesperson sell things. build something that is easy to sell. build something that people actually need
You’re going to feel foolish sometimes for being a genuine person but it is what it is. It’s a better way to live than being constantly fake and guarded. You’re here for a limited time, live a little.
There was no award when Newton discovered three laws of forces, nor when da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
There was no Grammy for Beethoven or Chopin, nor a Nobel Prize in Literature for Homer.
Masterpieces do not seek transient trophies but aim to be timeless.
Space launch was a clear case where there was a large difference in efficiency between what was possible and what was done in practice before SpaceX. A large part of that was due to everything being locked in to what (just barely) already worked, with huge risk aversion. WIth national prestige or a half billion dollar geosync satellite on the line, speculative engineering ideas that might result in a public debacle were not welcome.
When failure is not an option, success can stay very expensive. You need to experiment to improve, and that fundamentally means being comfortable with failure. If you know it is going to work, it isn’t an experiment.
I have long believed that nuclear power today is in precisely the same state as space launch two decades ago, but the even more pressing question now is if semiconductor fabrication might also be.
On the one hand, Moore’s Law has been a sequence of heroic miracles of technology at the wafer fabrication level, grinding out hundreds of compounding small improvements.
On the other hand, fabs are “too big to fail”, and there are elements of extreme conservatism at play. Intel’s “Copy exactly!” fab development exemplifies that mindset – instead of every new building being an opportunity to explore and optimize processes, it was deemed more valuable to just replicate.
While each individual machine may be straining against physical limits of technology, it is possible that the systems orchestrating them all together could be far from optimal.
The explore / exploit axis is fundamental to all decision making, but human risk avoidance probably biases away from optimal exploration.
The code review process barely exists in many Nigerian tech companies. People just push code to master/main branch, do it for 5 years and they are now 'seniors' who deserve heaven and earth.
Part of what forged me into what I am today is the brutal code reviews I got early in my career.
I got feedback on time that I was doing rubbish in the most direct way possible. This made me learn and ensure that whatever I was pushing upstream already pass the tests and linter/formatter checks locally.
Till today I still stage the changes and make I understand the diff before making a commit.
Code review comments came with facts, links to docs or a related stackoverflow issue. These days, we care so much about emotional intelligence to the point that we’re raising engineers who are loud and confident in their ignorance.