It's just that much of the 'innovation' is in a selection of domains with an emphasis on get-rich-quick pyramid schemes. Pressing problems like clean energy, clean water, peace, livable cities, energy saving, waste reduction, climate protection, ... are usually not among these domains of 'innovation'. Machine learning for Internet marketing or mass surveillance though is.
Solar City is one of several companies doing a leasing program for rooftop solar, that's hardly innovation. Worse, there doing rooftop solar which is far worse than grid connected solar which is worse than wind. Still, there likely making money and it sounds good.
Tesla is also something of a tossup, right now there cars are terrible for the environment, but that might change long term.
Nest is something of an odd duck. There worse than several other thermostats when it comes to saving energy, but adoption has been really poor in this area so it's probably a small net win.
I don't really see the benefit to Uber as they increase traffic relative to hailing a cab. There might be a net benefit to surge pricing though.
In the end Startups tend to be poor places to do real environmental impact simply because most issues are really large scale. Bumping a coal power plants efficiency by 1/10 a percent has a massive impact which is hard to reach on the small scale.
Communication needs added to that list. It's as important as any one of those. We just got to watch nations provide frequent updates to the public about the Greek negotiations via Twitter. Silicon Valley has created a vast number of technologies around communication over the decades.
I'd add google maps to that. Been wandering around Tokyo and Japan for a while on vacation and I've never once felt like I didn't know where I was going. Google Translate is also pretty good for translating text on signs through that photo functionality (sometimes the english is a bit rough, but still totally usable). Met a software dev last night at dinner who spoke little English (I speak pretty much zero Japanese aside from basic travel phrases) and we sat there with our phones out and had a great conversation about everything from baseball to work to family. That kind of connection would have been much more difficult without it.
Hell, call me crazy but maybe we could even add Snapchat to that. The "Live" stories where I can see snap videos from cities around the world is pretty cool.
When was the last time two English-speaking countries went to war with each other?
When you can talk to "the enemy" without a language barrier, or watch their creativity on YouTube, or go for a virtual walk down their streets, it's a lot harder to support killing them.
And when something like Google Maps enables my mobility like it does in a place I'm totally unfamiliar with, it's a lot more difficult to be guarded or reserved when traveling, because I'm not stressed about getting around, and I can enjoy the place more and meet people, which is sort of the point right?
Also, peace means more than just "not going to war".
For example, when video cameras got so small and cheap and power-conserving that they could be stuffed into every cellphone and worn by police officers, it kicked off a transformation of race relations and the topic of deadly police force in the United States. I think this particular change is only beginning to pick up steam, and will be a major force for domestic peace in the years ahead.
Self-driving vehicles enable smaller higher-frequency buses in less-dense areas.
And auto-taxis for the .50cent/mile cost of a personal car cut the Gordian knot of parking politics that often prevents new dense development in urban neighborhoods, since people don't need to own their own cars to take economical car trips occasionally.
And they shift the economics of vehicle ownership, so fewer people own cars, and thus fewer people identify as 'drivers' that are only concerned with roadway widening and parking construction, rather than public transit provision.
And, if nothing else, they'll make a big dent in the 30,000 people killed by automobiles every year.
Humans should not be operating cars or any other heavy machinery for that matter. Accidents caused by human error in cars are very prevalent, and self-driving cars at a macro-level would eliminate big risk factors for death and severe injury for a great number of people. Even if we don't get fully self-driving cars and just partially self-driving cars, it goes a long way towards reducing risk. So yes, REAL progress has and is being made.
I would also add, that over time hyper efficient public transit systems and large fleets of self driving cars doing transportation as a service converge into the same thing.
They are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
Combine that with the progress we are making with electric cars and we've got some REAL progress on multiple fronts that will make a serious difference to the lives of everyday people.
Self driving cars are the solution to a lot of things if your physical condition (age, other health issues) prevents you from driving in our car-centered culture.
As our population ages, this will be an ever greater problem. Loss of mobility has economic consequences beyond the specific people it happens to.
More efficient city transport - you have my vote. But there's a growing population cohort for which self-driving cars may be really helpful.
Transportation network companies have immediate origin and destination data for so many users that they will be able to create far more efficient "public" transportation systems than have ever existed. UberPool and Lyft Line are baby steps in that direction.
FYI, there's the world's only solar-focused startup incubator and accelerator is based in Oakland[1], which has around 20 solar software startups at any given time in it. They recently had a big hackathon and gave away $10k in cash[2]. They are hosting the Department of Energy Sunshot Jamathon next week[3], which will give away $1.5 million in awards each year. They are also hosting their annual huge party in a month[4]. Clean energy innovation is alive and thriving in the bay area. 4 of the top 5 solar companies are based here[5]. It's just that the rest of the tech community hasn't paid attention. It makes me very sad that Sam Altman is so obsessed with nuclear while the solar revolution is happening right in his back yard.
Source: I have a startup that went through the SfunCube accelerator and won one of the DOE Sunshot awards.
YC has been funding solar startups as well. The partners overall are also interested in this field and any single partner in an interview can fund a startup.
Great to hear! Able to mention any names? I haven't heard of any YC-backed solar companies beyond Bright, nor seen any at Intersolar or any of the bay area solar industry events. It would be great to see some new faces in the bay area solar startup community.
They are firstly technical, and only then political. One can't make a self-driving car by edict, but helping with putting the appropriate laws when the tech is ready, would be nice.
That was a clever and legitimate comeback. And many of the electric cars in the US are there right now based on edicts/legislation. In fact many car companies lose money on each sale but nred to manage to overall blend/mix %s each yea .
"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination." (...)
"Then my sunset?"
"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable."
"When will that be?"
"Hum! Hum!" replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. "Hum! Hum! That will be about-- about-- that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed."
The tools that are produced make SV innovative. Sometimes the tools are used for internet marketing (like Google) other times for energy saving (like Nest) --- or gambling (bitcoin blockchain-based betting). Now whether or not these tools could be used for good or bad, small problems or big problems, really depends on the person/team. Nonetheless, I disagree that there's an emphasis on "get-rich-quick pyramid schemes." More than anything, market forces (return on capital, profitability, etc.) play a strong role in determining the direction a concept will go.
lispm, I feel you bro. I used to get worked up about it but not as much anymore. The thing is, I see places like some places in startupland (e.g., HomeJoy, HubSpot) similar to Wharton. Meaning there's a higher concentration of self-centered and insecurely ambitious people who self-selectively go there to attempt to "make their bone". There are good people everywhere but the overall SV culture I personally want nothing to do with. So I'm happy for the "reverse social signaling" they give off and alternatively, imposing negative selection in the research cultural pool for people who are motivated purely by money.
I think there are plenty of people who are hard at work doing clean energy, climate protection etc. So I think the jury is still out in 10-15 years, whether a well-compensated mid-level Principal Engineer or Product Manager for "in-bound marketing" feels more satisfied than a Sr. Research Scientist in solar, environmental science etc. My bet is it is highly personal and contingent on the real impact the person made.
It might be the most innovative and most productive place but how does it affect the rest of the world ?
Let us not forget the other side of the coin.
(1) On one side - tech has magically enhanced the world and our lives. Socially, it has freed us from opression and gave us all a voice, ...etc
(2) On the other side - tech has disconnected us from nature and has negatively affected the environment, by making us much more efficient at extracting and transforming nature (raw materials) into goods.
Socially, even though everyone has a voice, it's lost in the cacophony - everyone tries to out-shout everyone else; we're constantly fighting for each other's attention, we're walking around looking at screens while our children are pulling our hands and screaming for our attention. And so on..
So is 'innovation' good or bad ? The answer is some union between (1) and (2). Only the future will definetely answer this.
It so in our nature to look at the extremes and ignore the other side of the coin that some are only going to see (1) and some are only going to see (2).
And for those who see only (2), Sillicon Valley, with all the good intentions, might just be the most destructive place in the world.
Based solely on stock value. Which, I guess if you had to take a measurement based on something it may as well be that. Assuming we're not in a bubble.
The last two crashes the stock value dropped 50%. Does that mean Silicon Valley productivity drops 50%?
This is the kind of armchair comment that misunderstands how Silicon Valley works. You're right that stock value is disconnected from actual value (or productivity), but it's not right to connote there is no value at all.
The first crash was lack of startup fundamentals. By all means it was a Valley-induced bubble.
But the second was an external liquidity crisis uninfluenced by the fundamentals of startups. In the aftermath of both crashes, billions in value were created by small teams of software engineers in Silicon Valley, and that's real earnings/cash flow.
In this sort of context, "baller in San Francisco" (or any city) is code for "guy who plies women with alcohol until they can't say no". It has nothing to do with sports.
You said Uber was "founded to facilitate date rape". That's shocking and disgusting, and you entirely made it up. That link has nothing to do with what you said.
I've asked you countless times in public and in private not to do this on HN. If you won't or can't stop, I'm going to ban your account.
The colloquial meaning of the term is not, "guy who plies women with alcohol until they can't say no." It is, "a successful person, typically one who has a lavish or self-indulgent lifestyle." Your definition is completely made up. Or are these synonyms to you?
Virtually nobody who uses the term "baller" in its douchey sense, ironic or not, is implying "sexual coercion". Is Aziz Ansari bragging about being a date rapist every time he uses the term? Obviously, he is not. I don't know why you're trying to defend this obviously hyperbolic argument.
