đŸ Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz âș thread âș 29407858 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2021-12-04)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I would love to work on open source, well designed, free software to control distributed energy resources and building load. Currently I've worked for several companies doing this, but I think that closed source, non free software will never allow us to truly reach the full electrification and decarbonization we need, and the power grid, both generation and transmission, is only getting more complex to manage with the old school tech approaches I've seen. I want to build the _free and open_ OS for the distributed grid, but I need to support my family first.
This isn't to beg, but imagine all the others who have similar stories to the above, like in medicine or education, and don't have the freedom to actually do those things because they are instead pouring effort into adtech or something else that's not as important to the world (no ad trolls please, it's just an example). Instead, we have risk averse profit motivation as our major path to innovation, and that's quite bad, in my opinion.
Ah, I was looking at similar stuff, among other things, so keep me in mind.
Me and my coworkers have a running gag where we predict things years in advance, but we just don't have access to the capital to do it... so someone else who does have money eventually does it, and a lot worse than we would have. These things happen every day.
Think: Do you want some nontechnical banker making decisions about what startup gets funding or someone who actually understands the scientific and social impact of a technology?
> Do you want some nontechnical banker making decisions about what startup gets funding or someone who actually understands the scientific and social impact of a technology?
On one hand, the latter would be cool.
On the other, I want decisions made by people committed to the cause. Understanding does not get you very far. âSome nontechnical bankersâ often spend years of their life dedicated for a cause, dealing with all the non-scientific bureaucracy which is necessary to get this job done, and which constitute 90% of it (not to mention all the responsibility and risk).
How much time, risk and responsibility does your ârunning gagâ require now? Are you sure you would choose to be that banker, and actually spend your life on this?
People who don't really understand the cause and can find employment separate from it likely aren't committed to it. A banker may not have the necessary training to understand what is going on and likely can find employment with someone else who needs paperwork filed. They may be necessary but putting them in charge of the money is a bad idea because they don't have expertise on the things they are deciding and get paid lots of money (but maybe slightly less) even if they are wrong. In some cases they just rig the rules so they never lose.
To be clear what was happening was random gadgets or improvements to an existing product would be discussed, and then invariably we'd see it later. You can claim it was inevitable but if we knew years before they ever did it then the only reason _we_ weren't the ones making money was a lack of capital.
> the only reason we weren't the ones making money was a lack of capital
I understand your point.
But all that is just saying âThe only reason I am not Batman is my lack of batsuit, mansion and a butlerâ.
Most important, I think âtechnological insightsâ are overrated. Insights are valued exactly because among investors tech savviness comes rare. But If you want to play in the same field, you need all the other pieces and skills (including the capital, but you might also get hired as an analyst or consultant, so it does not seem to be a critical blocker of capitalizing your knowledge).
So what really stops you from âfighting crimeâ?
Batman cannot exist in the real world; Batman has to be a fiction. Lack of money is not.
I worked in the company where the owner set up something relatively mathematically trivial and burnt through ÂŁ500,000 before he started to make a profit. He was born into wealth. I am several thousand pounds in debt to try to develop something which is far more technically sophisticated and generally useful to DB devs (may do a show HN), but getting anybody to notice it is difficult. Just developing it as I go deeper in debt is very difficult.
I tried to use it as a way of getting a job -- "please look at my project, it's neat!". The response? Hard to say, because nobody has asked me to demo it.
Not having easy, sufficient cash makes things incredibly hard. I'm talking from experience. I very much doubt you are.
I see where you're coming from, but, Frank Zappa said longhairs ruined music: the business brains knew they didn't know, so would try anything. Then, hip kids who thought they knew what was popular started falling out of school with A&R degrees and became the gatekeepers. It became much harder for moonshot, weird and outsider projects to receive attention from labels, let alone funding.
As always, YMMV. Also been reading HN for a long time, and just made an account to respond to this. Times they are a-changin'
We're in a relatively environment to get capital now; not sure it's ever been easier. Beyond the site in the OP, there's Patreon and equity crowdfunding like Wefunder. Though I think the best bet traditionally was to marry someone with a government job before quitting, so you can use their health insurance.
I've been working on
for the past 3 years part time, and the worst part is being aware of all of the time I could have spent on it but couldn't because I need to put food on the table. And I've got a ton of other technologies in the works, many of which will never see the light of day because I don't have enough years to make it happen working on them part-time...
To give a sense of scale, how much would it cost to get you to do it? I'd love to help fund it, but definitely don't make fully 2x "Support a family", so it would be intersting to know how many people I'd need to round up.
I would personally forego 60-70% of my salary to work on impactful things I want to work on. Rent paid, dog fed, wife happy. Not much else to ask for.
Exactly, I would do it for just enough to pay rent, food, medical, etc. for my family for at least a few years. I think these days that could be anywhere from 25k to 75k (just a guess) depending on an individual's location.
"... (no add trolls please, it's just an example)."
What is an ad troll.
Is it like someone who believes advertising revenue "makes our modern world spin".^1
1.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29186326
That is interesting because advertising spend is probably one of the least certain investments. It's causal effectiveness online is difficult if not impossible to measure. It is like suggesting casino receipts are what make the modern world spin.
Adtech is, IMO, not a "major path to innovation". Unless one adopts a very narrow view of what innovation looks like.
It is wonderful to hear someone claim "I want to do X, but I have to do Y to feed my family", where X is "something important to the world" and Y is not.
However, if doing Y is diverting attention away from X, or possibly even causing harm, then maybe "not doing Y" is also "something important to the world".
No doubt people working for companies who were selling massive quantities of opioids were feeding their families, and arguably they were not violating any laws. Unfortunately, these criteria were not by themselves enough to stop them from doing harm.
I'm lucky that I can work in an "X" category job still, even if I can't do what I described above. I wouldn't be so harsh on those in "Y" category jobs, though, because I imagine the vast majority of folks are doing that, and maybe only a handful are truly in the "opioid pushing" equivalent jobs.
> However, if doing Y is diverting attention away from X, or possibly even causing harm, then maybe "not doing Y" is also "something important to the world".
I think this kind of analysis discounts the importance of family. Maybe, "not doing Y" is less important than "keeping my family fed".
"I think this discounts the importance of family."
Which family. (a) The family of the person doing Y or (b) the families of the persons who fail to ever see the benefit of X or, worse, who suffer harm from Y.
If the answer is (b), then not doing Y benefits the most families. Choice (b) fits better with the idea of "doing something important to the world", especially if one agrees that what he is doing now is preventing him from doing not something that is important to the world.
You want to discount the importance of not doing Y/doing X. The "keeping my family fed is more important than [something important ot the world]" argument is just not very convincing. Because the question is not all-or-nothing. It is not either-or question. It is possible to keep a family fed without working on adtech. And if no one was in fact keeping their family fed while working on more important things, then it stands to reason the world would be even worse off as a result.
> Which family. (a) The family of the person doing Y or (b) the families of the persons who fail to ever see the benefit of X or, worse, who suffer harm from Y. If the answer is (b), then not doing Y benefits the most families. Choice (b) fits better with the idea of "doing something important to the world", especially if one agrees that what he is doing now is preventing him from doing not something that is important to the world.
This is how you get neglected kids with parental issues. I've seen it happen. If you're going to have kids, they need to know that they are your first priority, and they need to be treated that way.
> You want to discount the importance of not doing Y/doing X.
Nope. I just want to make the point that however important X is, or not doing Y is, the hierarchy should be family > ( X | !Y).
> It is not either-or question. It is possible to keep a family fed without working on adtech.
If you're lucky. But you're sidestepping my point, which is that if you have a choice between not working on adtech and feeding the family, feed your family.
Your "point" is a self-serving framing the issue of working on important world problems versus working on adtech as one of feeding the family versus not feeding the family (starving). You want us to believe "I have no choice". That may be your perspective. Whether it applies to anyone else is questionable. If there are really lots of people working in adtech who are in some sort of "forced labour" arrangement, where if they take another job, their children will starve, then we perhaps we should try to help them. The whole idea is silly. There are millions of people around the world who really are suffering who truly cannot feed their families, for real, and you want us to believe that people who work on adtech, who have the skills to be working on more important things, are among them.
a) You came up with the example of feeding the family, not me. I'm just using it.
b) I think you have a vastly inflated sense of how much a programming job impacts the world, especially compared to the immediate impact we have on our kids.
c) Stay off the personal attacks, they just make it look like you couldn't come up with anything better.
d) Twice now you've told me what I'm saying. Are you sure you actually know?
Instead of stating that you believe that working on adtech is not such an important issue, which is a perfectly valid point view though I may disagree with it, you accused me of "discount[ing] the importance of family". How is that not a personal attack.
You suggested a false tradeoff between not working on adtech and "the importance of family." There is no such tradeoff. A person might even have more time to spend with the family by doing something different.
Forget about the family feeding justification example. It comes from past HN commments I have seen where people are apparently having a crisis of conscience about what they are actually doing for "work" and looking for acceptable "justifications".^1 The question is why work on adtech versus something else. There is a choice. No one is being forced to work on ads. That is the point of the example.
As for the "vastly inflated sense of how much a programming job impacts the world", that should go the parent commenter as he believes he could be doing something important to the world if he was not working on adtech. We cannot assess whether or not it is "inflated", because adtech is consuming his time and energy and denying him the chance to even try.
What I am suggesting is that simply not working on adtech could itself be something important because, from the computer user perspective, adtech is a pervasive nusiance. It is fine to disagree, and even accuse me of being biased towards users instead of developers, but accusing me of "discounting the importance of family" is disingenuous and, IMO, dishonest. There is no such tradeoff.
Programming jobs can and do have an impact on the world. Consider the environment. The energy consumption of datacenters built to store the results of personal data mining for the purposes of advertising. The energy-intensive minerals extraction for mobile phones that are deliberately intended to become "obsolete" after a commercially desirable period. The auto emissions fraud, e.g., Volvo.
1. Another one is "Well if I don't do this, someone else would just take my place." You just can't make this stuff up.
I love the idea of mothminds, and I would also love to support projects like these even if it is just little money each month. We need a Twitch like sub model, or maybe this moth minds could help.
I would like $100k to work on the Collatz conjecture for 6 months.
I have an idea that will probably fail, but if I had that money I would quit my job work my ass off for six months to flesh it out.
But I have no credentials, no way to write a grant proposal, and even I wouldn't invest in myself.
....and yet if we did this sort of experiment 10000 times over, humanity might make some big breakthroughs because some of this people would be legitimately smart (unlike me).
of course 10000 x one billion dollars, so maybe we _should_ just fund legit grant seeking PhDs.
For something like this, if you have a good idea, why not explain it and make the idea public so someone with more time can research it? You'll only lose the chance to make a big name for yourself, and if it pans out you'll still get some credit, and the human race will have advanced in knowledge. It's not like you're giving away a possible formula to nuclear fusion. What's the downside I'm not seeing?
I have tried that, but people online don't really have an open mind.
I'll tell you right now... I _feel_ like there is a way to model the 3n+1 system of equations (or really any such generalized system) using Godel numbering as a representation of each operation, as a prime number based programming language of nature, and then try to glean something from the output primes to see if there is something that predicts the single 4->2->1 outcome we always see. e.g. if it is a certain form of Fermat prime or something.
It would require me to put my computers to work because these numbers get very big, but the real limitation is my time because I have three kids and cannot afford to quit my job.
I feel like that would fail. The reason is that Gödel numbers are rather arbitrary, and will therefore be rather far from a form that insights can be gleaned from. They are a representation of a representation, using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic only as a trick to encode any string of symbols into one integer.
As an example of just how arbitrary Gödel numbers are, consider the expressions `((3*n)+1)` and `((n*3)+1)`. Those expressions are clearly equivalent, yet the Gödel numbers for those two expressions are wildly different, with a relation that is rather complex.
IIUC Gödel himself never "used" or analyzed Gödel numbers as such, only the idea that they could be constructed.
In your example, the Godel number works out to be the same when you multiply them out - but your underlying point is valid that the assignment of primes to variables and operators cannot be as arbitrary as Godel used them as.
...a better example is just "x 1". You could add that ad infinitum to any equation and it cannot change the meaning of the outputted Godel number. ...but remember that getting a different result does not mean the interpretation of the Godel number is different. For example, multiples of ten are also even. 64 and 9 are different numbers, but they are both perfect squares. ...and the goal is to find something descriptive of the resultant number - not the number itself.
...but that's one of the main areas to explore. There are different types of primes to experiment with to see if anything meaningful can be discovered.
If you multiply it out, then it's just a regular number?
Your idea smells like wishful thinking.
I'm not sure I follow what you're proposing, but in case it is tangentially related to a project I work on, I'll describe what I did.
Write down every quantitative expression in Mathematical Physics. Assign a unique numerical ID to each expression. Identify the relations between each of the expressions to create a graph. Does that graph feature any patterns? Is there a path from any expression to every other expression?
Rather than a numeric ID, the variables as well as the operations are represented by primes, as Godel described.
The resulting number's geometric properties _might_ provide some insight into the properties of the original system.
The trick is figuring out which primes to use initially, and how to interpret the resulting number.
....but my gut tells me there is something there.
And, did you find something?
I tried to Google Collatz and Gödel to see if anyone's done any work like this, and all I found was a now-private Youtube video with the description "Reframing the Collatz Conjecture using Gödel numbering..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPQx1q9cfkU
...so maybe there's something to this line of research. I don't think this is a bad idea at all.
What platform would be the most suitable one to publish ideas in a way that a future researcher can pick it up and work on it. A blog post on internet? That will just get lost in the internet noise. What you are suggesting is probably writing a white paper on it.
Maybe Iâm misreading, but it SEEMS like this site is reverse kickstarter: I would like to FUND people to work on the Collatz conjecture, please apply.
The site isn't active yet
Unfortunately, availability of money for an speculative work results in emergence of entire industry of scammers, whose only competence is getting grants to do that speculative work. For example, various European Union programmes are overtaken by such people.
Also, this is the reason why VCs, after funding a startup, generallly prefer to be breathing down the CEO's neck (instead of a hands-off approach) - they know that the temptation do just burn through someone else's money while doing a half-assed attempt is too strong for many. In other words, people in general are took weak morally for your idea to produce good results.
My wife says a similar thing, and I agree that it's a hard problem to solve to prevent all that cash going to someone who will just play video games for the length of the grant. I guess you still need some signal that a person will work somewhat diligently on the grant work. I still think that it's important to fund that sort of work because there are so many examples of famous mathematicians in history who were just bored rich folks, or folks who had a benefactor and an idea, or maybe just a poor hermit from nowhere.
Well, we were getting pretty nice results pre-XX century,
before any of the taxpayers' money got (forcibly) involved. Why not just continue relying on that proven model (i.e. the rich bored folks, the benefactors and the crazy hermits)? Esp. in math, where there's no need for any equipment or materials, it seemed to work well.
I can see that, but I don't want to get into the implications for taxes and such, that's a polarizing topic. Wherever it comes from, it's necessary to support people with good ideas (and even some bad ones).
I'll send you 10 bucks. I really believe Naval x Joe Rogan outlined the whole future of work, together with the movie "Her".
> I would like $100k to work on the Collatz conjecture for 6 months
> I have no credentials
Then why would you need $100k to work on mathematics?
> why would you need $100k to work on mathematics?
it's to live off, and support dependents while doing something that would not bring in traditional forms of profit.
That's why it's usually called a grant, rather than an investment - because the granter isn't going to see a direct financial return (but would want to see a societal return such as knowledge or something cultural etc).
100k for 6 months __living expenses__ would be without question the most generous grant I have ever seen or heard of.
Yeah, PhD income is $40k or less a year. So 5x above market rate for high-risk research. On top of that, PhD students are well-aligned for the research and have other non-monetary reasons to pursue the research (their PhD requirements).
as mentioned in the other thread - the grant needs to compete with existing salary, or the OP would need to sacrifice potential income.
I dont think 100k for 6 months is ridiculous, because this is basically the starting salary for a grad engineer at a FAANG tech company. More, if they have experience.
What's actually ridiculous is "PhD income is $40k or less a year" - i think people (such as yourself) is so desensitized to low income as to feel normalized about it!
I'm saying I have no formal credentials in Math specifically, not no professional credentials in any field.
100k for six months would be a pay cut for me, but maybe you're right... Maybe I'm being greedy at the opportunity to make a real contribution.
At the end of the day I still need to feed/house a family of five so the 100k is still ballpark, but maybe I can set aside a few more than 6 months. 10?
Not that it matters because who would fund someone with no formal credentials in Math? Even I wouldn't fund me.
> Even I wouldn't fund me.
I mean, that's the heart of it right there. You're netting $200k+ but you wouldn't set aside six months expenses and take a sabbatical to work on your idea. So why would someone else?
> So why would someone else?
Because different people have different marginal utilities of money. It's not implausible that there is someone (or a group of people) out there who is interested in seeing the Collatz conjecture proven, who places less value on the $100k than koheripbal does.
What you fail to understand is that when you net 200k$, you are rich. There's a moral issue to ask other to fund your rich lifestyle to allow you work on something and on top of that, taking all the fame in case of success.
It's ok to be on the top 1% by the benefits of you work. However, it's hard to justify asking others to finance your stay on the top 1% for charity.
I don't disagree with you -- $200k is a lot, especially by global standards. But I encourage you to check the Form 990s filed with the IRS by your favorite 501 charity, and see how much is spent on e.g. executive salaries. This kind of compensation is not uncommon.
$200K is not a lot if you live in a high cost location like SF on NYC, are senior in your IT career, and have a family. In IT it's below average, and the commenter here is saying he'd be taking a pay cut to do this.
He's an expensive grant, but he's probably got more potential to solve a problem than the average PhD student.
This is the problem of lifestyle creep. I have the same problem too, though I earn less than that. If everyone could live off next to nothing maybe weâd all have time to solve stuff sans-grants.
Sadly if you decide to have a family in an expensive COL then you are kinda out of the race for bang-for-buck grants unless you are genius level talented.
> If everyone could live off next to nothing maybe weâd all have time to solve stuff sans-grants.
I think this is, theoretically, one of the promises of communism. When I was in Cuba, I went to a local theater production of Don Quixote. It was free, and no one got any money from it, yet it was professional-level quality. In good times at least, under comminism, people have the freedom to explore their passions, because the state takes care of all their essential needs. Sadly, communism rarely leads to good times, and I can tell you for certian that none of my Cuban friends would say that the state adequately provides for their needs most of the time. It's a nice idea, at least.
In your case I think you would be better served by being able to discuss with a mathematics faculty in a way similar to what happens naturally in academia.
I think it's not just money but the ability to more freely go back to school. It is difficult-ish to get the funding for, essentially, self-directed research during the best years of your life, and basically impossible if you don't already have an undergraduate degree.
Asking someone with a mature career to formally return to academia seems like a non-starter.
In such a case he'd need to pay more money and spend even more time - when all he wants to do is work on this one particular problem.
I know, that's why I'm not asking him to do that. It's just instead of giving him money what he really needs is an opportunity to speak with professionals. The issue is a typical academic career path is usually the only way to speak to those people.
If you don't then solve it, you burned $100,000 in good will and a year of your life. Better not to even suggest it, there's little enough going around as is.
> maybe we should just fund legit grant seeking PhDs.
We already do, through the NSF, DARPA, DOJ, NSA, NASA, etc.
Parent commenter doesn't seem like he'd qualify for any of those since he has no math credentials.
To be honest, it's a tough question. He's clearly a successful senior IT professional (assuming everything he said is true), and so he's probably intelligent. Even if we assume he's mature enough to stay well focused for that period and work hard, it's sort of a toss-up as to whether it's worth us funding it over another candidate.
Then again, there is no other platform like this, so if I had the option between contributing $50 to this person vs doing nothing - I'd rather give $50 to him on the off-chance that he solves (or materially advances) the Collatz Conjecture.
...but also, this speaks to a dysfunction in the Math community, in general. There should be a more constructive online forum for people like him to participate in.
sounds a lot like what VCs are already doing, except they're interested in business, not big breakthroughs
As someone just barely past past the affluence event horizon, VCs are now actively courting me to lead startups to develop their ideas or to invest in their funds. Previously, they just dismissed me as hella smart but clearly not leadership material (apparently net worth is an equivalent virtue signal to academic pedigree, who knew?). I am instead investing in myself and building skills orthogonal to what got me here so as to push senility off into the far off future.
I like the concept here in principle. But I would love to see it expand to also attracting tribes both in terms of time and money to build concepts. These days, I tell startups that want my money that it is off the table, but I offer my time and opinions in exchange for free dinners. It's up to them whether they consider that a good deal or not. Or it's easy to get money if you're willing to search for someone who's already pursuing something similar and you just need to express your concept as if it is their concept. What's hard is finding people who can execute all the way to production. Thank you for attending my TED Talk(tm).
I've had a similar experience. It is kinda satisfying to tell those folks thanks, but you simply don't have time for their call.
Valley VCs shop for very particular people, and behaviorally, are perfectly fine ignoring good ideas if the body in front of them (when young) didn't go to Stanford or (when older) doesn't care about some of the same things.
Just ignore them, they're increasingly unnecessary.
I've written and thought a lot about the need for a platform that enables investment in individuals and projects[0], so I'm REALLY happy for any initiatives that look into this.
I work on a game engine[1] and am slowly acquiring GitHub sponsors. When I think about these platforms, I think about them relative to the status quo: GitHub sponsors, Patreon, Kickstarter.
From what I can tell Moth Minds isn't an investment platform but rather a "generous donor creates a grant program, people apply and get an effective donation" program. I'm left wondering: am I missing anything? How does this differ from someone donating to individuals on GitHub sponsors, Patreon, Kickstarter, etc.? It seems the primary thing is that the donor doesn't need to find individuals to sponsor (which is great) but not the massive game changer I hope to see in our future.
That said, still very interesting work Molly-thank you for exploring this! I wish more people were thinking about this!
[0]
https://devlog.hexops.com/2021/terrifying-parallels-between-...
[1]
https://devlog.hexops.com/2021/mach-engine-the-future-of-gra...
This is a wonderful idea, and I will be quite curious to see where it goes. I really, really like the idea of funding individuals we believe in, rather than specific projects.
It reminds me of Gittip from a decade ago, which morphed into Gratipay. That original idea of "distributed genius grants", which is reminiscent of MacArthur fellowships, was great.
Anyone digging into this space has to be willing to wade deep into fighting fraud. Any platform that allows people to funnel money their way is going to draw abusers and desperate people. I appreciate people who are willing to face this head on.
The article (and title) is about funding work, not people.
Postgraduate scholarships are closer to "funding people", since you can propose any project you like (in my experience, anyway). Academic performance is the credential - not a terrible predictor but of course far from perfect.
And in academia, there are a lot of "moths", who use their position to do their own thing, outside the entire academial-publishing complex. A personal skunkworks.
I'm working on an open-source project that I think should show some value if we can get it off the ground.
My concern is that this sponsorship model is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: You can't attract sponsorship at early stages, because all you have to show is 'hopes and dreams'. But once it's done, you don't really need sponsorship as much: it's done and I'll move onto the next project. And to get from the early stage to a viable project, a friend and I really need to spend i guess 6mo full-time. I fear part-time will take forever and likely lead to project abandonment due to lack of momentum.
So i'm not really sure what to do, I'd really like to see it succeed.
(the project is github.com/soniclang/sonic)
Get a job.
UBI will do this. Lots of freeloaders, but at pretty much the same cost as at present.
But it's instructive to look at communistic/socialistic states, which pretty much had this. Anecdotally, Joscha Bach talks about his father, being able to do his own thing in that environment, without needing it to be practical.
And perhaps that's the crucial thing: without incentives, ideas are not made practical, where they can make a difference. Did you ever notice that when some cool new mathematics is developed and applied to do something amazing, it turns out that the math had already been worked out by somebody else about two centuries ago - but that work had no effect on the breakthrough. It would have made no difference if it had never been done...
For me, who loves the idea of people being able to work on whatever inspires them, this is _terrible news_. I wonder if there's a way around it? Perhaps just better connecting previous work - "idea search", if you like (present academic "literature review" is evidently inadequate).
Perhaps a categorization system like Roget's or Dewey's, but for arbitrarily dimensional application of ideas, maybe somethig relational or like Hoogle for searching Haskell type signatures, which works surprisingly well, probably because types are general in terms of application. The semantic web _doesn't_ seem to work well; too specific/concrete.
> UBI will do this.
I get where you're coming from but UBI is not the same as funding individuals for the simple reason that funded individuals arrive at an amount greater than UBI funding -- economic firepower that's duly needed when competing for resources whose supply is far outstripped by demand (e.g. GPUs for academic compute competes with crypto miners).
True, though I think the most ground-breaking stuff is done by people without expensive equipment. e.g. Crypto algorithms themselces weren't prpven using expensive equipment.
Tycho had the expensive telescope, but Kepler used his observations to make the breakthrough.
The reason is that if you _must_ use expensive equipmemt within the ongoing process of your trial-and-error, it is not just expensive, but exorbitantly expensive.
Though... I guess youe example of- GPUs aren't that expensive, and can facilitate the reaearch process. OTOH I'm not sure there are breakthroughs being made that way, more iterative progress - the enabling breakthrough, of Deep Learning by Hinton, didn't need GPUs.
Tangential question. The painting at the top of the post is gorgeous. How did go about licensing it for use?
Gotta love image search -->
https://rebeccaluncan.com/polyphemus-over-nashi/
I'm actually interested in your question, too, seeing how this is an original painting the artist is selling for $2600.
Looks like the copied the image directly from shopify cdn.
Go here, click on the image for the popup, then open image in new tab. It's the exact same dimensions as the background image in op's post.
https://www.antlerpdx.com/collections/rebecca-luncan/product...
As far as I can find on the web, there are no digital copies available for sale. There is the small chance the person whom created the marketplace bought the original, but not likely.
Not sure how this could really work compared to what we have already? Most people with jobs and currently at max capacity can't take a sliver of time off every day for a 5% decrease in wage (and how would you use it well?), or an extra 2 weeks of unpaid leave a year even if they had money to replace it. There's a reason it's only news when some OSS dev finally has enough money coming in that they can afford to quit their job altogether or take a 6 month sabbatical to work on their true calling.
Nice project!! Artists, traditional medicine practitioners, philosophers, social service volunteers, natural farmers, conservationists, and researchers in many obscure areas are people who come to mind while reading about Mothminds. A huge human social good potential remains untapped in these silent people. I hope Mothminds will be a catalyst in this effort.
Funding can move the needle and sustain them to some level. A greater need is yet not met like providing emotional support until they see light in their area. More tools to help them help us are unrealized wishes.
A searchable index of multidisciplinary projects and motivated people working on them is something I'd support financially. I was recently searching for such a community outside of academia to network withim my area of interest but failed to connect. This would be a good place to start.
If the goal is developing grantee self-efficacy, the funding should require pairing with a mentor. Finding a mentor that is willing to guide a grantee to bring an idea to fruition is also validation of that individual's ability to accomplish the task.
I think that follows the mentality of VC, the idea here seems to support agency and unique views on the world, for diverging from the path is when a new path is found. I think enforcing a mentor program would harm that goal.
I'd love to take a year and just build free security tools for people to use. I don't need a mentor to do that, I just need a salary replacement for that time period.
This reeks of the mantra of product managers everywhere... "There is no way a brilliant engineer would be able to create something great without management."
Having a mentor wouldn't be like having a manager at all. A mentor can't control what you do, or interact with your goal. The only (shallow) similarity I might admit is as someone that you infrequently explain what you're working on that isn't intimately involved with the details. ... Maybe someone having your back, helping you stay honest with yourself, and pointing out obvious potholes you missed before you fall into them face first wouldn't be so bad.
1. Apply for new job, get 30% raise (apparently everyone is doing it).
2. Cut expenses by 30% (how hard can it be? Avocado toast is tre expensive!)
3. Save for just one single year.
4. Hey thereâs your salary replacement! Looking forward to awesome security tools (seriously, legit looking forward to it).
(Lest you fear obsolescence;
5. Get your new new job, 30% raise again).
Probably easier to just work part time. I do 32 hour work weeks. I'm still well paid by non-IT standards, and it allows me to put at least some time toward not-for-profit R&D-type stuff. I do appreciate not everyone is in a situation where that's viable.
Would I like to just get money to build cool stuff, sure. But since I'm not an actual Ferengi, I like to build cool stuff more than I like hoarding money. So this is my compromise, I make enough to make due but not so much I don't have time to do good things.
I'm not against the general idea of a mentor program, but a "validation gatekeeper" smells ripe for abuse. Maybe a better implementation for a general mentor program in this context would be a "peer mentor" -- every grantee is paired with two other grantees, one to mentor and one to be mentored by. Maybe there would be a loose expectation that your mentoring peers would rotate periodically.
I like the idea. I wonder how much "return" financial contributors would want. I'd suggest allowing financial contributors to split a set sum between recipients. I've often liked the idea "I'll contribute x amount to whatever, this is how I'll split it per month" and being able to do that easily.
Not all contributors look for returns. There are people who are willing to contribute to a cause instead of say buying a TV. We see such contributions on gofundme to help out people in need.
Of course everyone wants a return! But it might be a return in satisfaction or something else that's hard to quantify, not necessarily money.
Curious what the structure of this is. Is this supposed to be many->one? Where many people with small amounts of $ get together and give one person a grant? One->many, where many people get small amounts of $ from one relatively wealthy person? Or many->many?
This is a visually beautiful page. The first image, the font, the color scheme. Nothing is too original, but it has character and it serves the meaning carried by the text.
I think this is a lovely idea.
Just as everyone has a novel inside them, there are two or three "drop everything if I had the cash" ideas inside every head. All of them unique and some even useful to society :-)
Yes. Let's fund more moths.
This looks really interesting. Very curious to see how it will end up working.
This is an interesting premise, but I'm not sure that the pool of potential grant recipients will be a very good one. The problem that I foresee is that people working on these sorts of projects seem to fall into two broad categories:
-People who don't want to work for someone else, but lack vision and exist on social proof. These people will be attracted to the grant funding, but unable to use it to create something interesting.
-People who appear to have vision, and are either brilliant (and often very driven) or delusional (and often lazy). Most of this group is delusional, and will never succeed. The brilliant ones are so driven that they will often succeed without assistance.
Even venture capitalists are bad at finding brilliant, driven visionaries, so I'm not sure how this individual plans to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The world is full of smart, curious, active people who are neither brilliant nor delusional.
One problem we do have is that (in the States, especially), our culture is geared around individual careers.
Meaning we don't have a supportive culture for people creating stuff on their own - or really a strong culture of forming small supportive teams.
I do think the tech world (and, even if you really oppose it in general, the crypto world) has a lot of people forming teams to do cool stuff. So that's a culture which is a counterexample to what I just said.
Given such a generally atomized (or actively unhelpful) culture, you're more likely to have a few breakouts ("brilliant") and a lot of more normal folks who can't make it ("delusional").
Nevertheless, I think giving grants to free more people up to start figuring out how to do creative work on their own (or, better, form networks and groups to support them socially) is a very good start.
In other words, it's not about just sorting the wheat from the chaff - it's more about helping more people to start muddling their way to a happy and helpful place.
With that said, I'm glad you've surfaced this concern, as it is certainly a common one.
I think that you're suggesting something like _weego_ did in another comment, which seems like a worthy goal, but is a bit different from what the proposal seemed to outline (at least in my reading).
I 'run' my own micro arts fund providing support for people in MH communities that would like supplies or tools to help as part of their ongoing rehab or change of career as a way of getting back into a life that means something.
The answer really is if you expect a measurable outcome from small-scale investing in people then don't do it, you're in the wrong space. If you view your investment as a path to the outcome you have in mind for them then don't do it, you're in the wrong space.
If you believe that a person deserves opportunity that might otherwise be blocked from them by what the privileged of us would consider incredibly low bars (money) and are willing to possibly not ever know if it made a difference or where that took them then it might be for you.
Yes, this sounds right!
If you approach it with the mindset of "let's free this person up for a while and see if this helps them do something cool" then you're more likely to be happy with the outcome.
This is not a job, after all, which would allow you to get a measurable or specific outcome - it's a grant!
What youâre describing seems clearer and much more likely to succeed than the plan in the post. It sounds like youâre talking about enabling others to self-actualize, which is definitely a worthy goal (but not what the post seemed to be trying to achieve).
I work in similar area. Giving them space and time to stream their creativity into some tangible artifact is the first step. This can be cash or a long chat on random topics. Some talented folks resign in their life due to day-to-day grind. They have to be reignited to tap into their creativity. It is mind-blowing to see simple tools, processes, and a little bit of encouragement can go a long way. Providing space and time for creativity is a good means to a better end - whatever the end may be.
I put this together as a concept. There are so many tiers of "low bar", I think a lot of people just need a very basic safety net.
There is so much real estate sitting essentially empty and the boomer generation is starting to downsize to smaller places because their homes feel empty and have become unrewarding to own.
After my parents died when I was young I would have killed for a middle class teen/twenties life.
https://www.middleclasspaas.com/
That has to be one of the most uplifting things I've seen in a long time!
The common answer to the world's problems these days is more along the way of "just have an idea, then fund it, then sell it and then I'll be happy for you if it solves my problems first".
Civilization is a group endeavor, so called Democracy even more so.
Seems very niche, but I like this idea. Why not have an agency for lonely/struggling people who want to get together and develop some kind of symbiotic relationship with each other to do so? There's risks, but those are always present. I hope it works out.
Even if I accept your model of reality, there are some pretty big problems that a grant could address:
1) the categories of 'brilliant' and 'delusional' aren't mutually exclusive, especially since both are spectra rather than binary. They aren't entirely orthogonal, however.
2) 'brilliant' and 'delusional' are each qualities that are very hard to evaluate except in hindsight.
3) Finally, it is possible for someone who is brilliant and non-delusional to still fail (or be 'insufficiently driven' and give up rather than dying in poverty), or to succeed with no-one noticing (because they lack resources or skills for self-promotion).
There _is_ no way to reliably sort the wheat from the chaff, except to give them space and time to succeed or fail.
I agree with you on all three points; I was trying to point out that there's an adverse selection problem that the post doesn't seem to take into account. Even most VCs have a very difficult time making money by finding brilliant visionaries, and they have a number of factors working in their favor.
> The brilliant ones are so driven that they will often succeed without assistance.
That might be true, but the _level_ of success might change dramatically based on assistance. Founders know this, and may choose that path despite being capable of success regardless.
I completely agree, the problem is that the adverse selection problem makes finding these people difficult, and often uneconomical (not just unprofitable).
> The brilliant ones are so driven that they will often succeed without assistance.
but brilliance for truly novel things is usually only revealed in retrospect. Might as well say "the ones who succeeded are driven and brilliant because they succeeded"
also, you are implying lazyness is a vice (because work is virtue?) however lazyness is also whence the value of comfort (i.e. of making things eaiser) comes. I'm saying there's a positive side to lazyness. (similar to "drive" or ambition, there's pros and cons to it).
VCs aren't primarily looking for brilliant visionaries, even if its a popular narrative--the (high) risk/reward profile of a business venture is at least as important to them as the character of its founding team.
The thesis behind Moth Minds seems to be that there is a lot of interesting/valuable* work that could be done that doesn't fit any of the typical funding models (VC, small business loan, burn through personal savings, Patreon, tips, etc.).
Like Xerox PARC type projects or PhD research without the gatekeeping.
This kind of work doesn't exactly require a singular brilliant visionary, but it helps to provide a financial incentive to lure someone with a unique vision from a comfortable tech salary.
*for flexible interpretations of value
change your definitions of success & take off the pre-judgement blinders?
That is some pretty strong armchair folk psychology. I'd rather put the run-off-the-mill social Darwinist economics talk aside and focus on ways to evaluate a grant recipient's progress, with a positive attitude and helping them along the way. Startups also often fail, individual grants will not be different from that, and not everyone needs to be a brilliant genius to achieve something.
>_âStartups also often fail, individual grants will not be different from that, and not everyone needs to be a brilliant genius to achieve something.â_
I agree, but Iâm trying to point out that this plan has an adverse selection problem coupled with some other issues.
Maybe you're right, it's difficult to judge from that web page. It depends a lot on how they intend to carry out the funding process and the web page doesn't say much about it. I assumed it's something like Patreon, which works well for some people, I've heard.
This is spiritually and practically compatible with the grants work we're doing at Gitcoin :)
Come get involved and we can scale this up!
gitcoindao.com
I don't fully understand your approach here, but I would like to.
How is this different from individuals donating to people e.g. developing software via GitHub sponsors, or donating to artists they like on Patreon, or funding development of physical products on Kickstarter?
The best answer I can come up with is that gitcoindao tries to ride the "DAO", "Web3", "decentralized" buzz words.
Unless the goal is really to have investments to people on gitcoindao give real-world returns, using a DAO to skirt SEC securities regulations?
How do you plan to resolve the issue of basically just crypto stuff being sponsored with this? seems like another missed opportunity if it only applies to the crypto community, but not surprising
It's not just crypto, and it's not just software.
The grants round that opened today can be seen here:
https://gitcoin.co/grants/#match-pools
It includes grants for climate change and grants for longevity.
To answer your question, the difference from kickstarter is that grants for public goods don't produce products - they produce public goods.
It is possible to have many cynical takes, but if you scratch the surface, you'll see that funding public goods really is what this is all about.
nice, can't wait to be owned by strangers
That's commendable, I love it.
As other commenters said, I'd absolutely love to break my back working on improving the status quo [through free open source] but I am not paid for it. Like damn, I couldn't even convince some colleagues to use `just` as opposed to `make` and the migration path is _trivial_ for most normal development cases (not talking about old Linux libraries or the kernel, of course). Takes literally 15 minutes, once, to rewrite your task file and you're done and you can write much less and have your stuff done predictably. But no, "I don't want to learn a new tool". Coming from a 25-year old. <facepalm>
If I can't even do the above, while clearly demonstrating the benefits to productivity and less mistakes due to the hundreds of footguns of the legacy technology... then what hope do we even have to, say, finally start working on a completely new shell without the limitations of the current ones? What hope do we have to finally fix the entire X.org / Wayland mess on Linux and have a unified ecosystem?
Practically zero. Because apparently there are people who would defend any idiosyncratic technology with their fists, it turns out.
I'd go on a limb and say that 95% of the best of the best programmers out there are trapped in lucrative jobs where they have almost zero creative freedom. I hate it as well but we have to ensure our own survival first, and that's a constant grind in this civilization. Hence you can spend your _ENTIRE_ career dreaming of doing something else and never actually do it. Hold that thought for a moment, it's a very good reality check.
Initiatives like in the OP give me hope that at least some generous people would take a look and say "hey, that makes it easier for me to donate / fund efforts"... but I am not holding my breath. Our current society does not optimize for any of this.
Finally, the biggest problem is discoverability. I and many others (to be clear, I am not putting myself in the group of "the best of the best of the programmers" but I am a guy who gets crap done nonetheless) simply are too tired and jaded to go participate in weekend hackathons or any R&D events (if such even exist?) so they end up being full of young inexperienced people whose net worth to the R&D arena is close to zero. :(
Is there even a solution? IMO not until the incentives change, dramatically so. Or you become a millionaire somehow and then all your burnout magically disappears and you ambitiously became a benevolent dictator of several such efforts until you're satisfied the entire thing is a less shaky house of cards. But that doesn't sound like a probable scenario: most people, when they eventually make it, are way too psychologically tired to _then_ actually start doing everything else they wanted in the profession before. They prefer to lie on beaches and boy, do I understand them perfectly.
<saddened rant ends here>
> Initiatives like in the OP give me hope that at least some generous people would take a look and say "hey, that makes it easier for me to donate / fund efforts"... but I am not holding my breath. Our current society does not optimize for any of this.
I've recently discovered first hand that there are people who will give money away for little to nothing in return. Two examples:
1. I have a friend who makes over $300K/year as a ship's captain. She has way more money than she needs. One this she does with all her disposable income is fund kickstarters.
2. Last year, a random stranger spent $200 to buy gifts for my 3 kids just because my wife replied to a facebook thread on the topic of "what does everyone's kids want for Christmas". The woman wasn't even the OP on the tread. I'm not sure why she picked my family, I guess she just was charmed that my kids wanted sleeping bags.
> Finally, the biggest problem is discoverability.
This is true. Especially, when the concept of software development cost is so difficult to explain to a layperson. One can easily grasp the creative value of funding a Kickstarter for a graphic novel. How do you get non-technical person excited about software?
Moth Minds is a platform that makes it extremely easy for anyone to start their own grants program.
Where is it? More like will be.
I don't believe in work.
Is that ethnocentrism?
Great idea, not the best choice of name. I think some of the criticism is valid. There are delusional lazy people that will sink your investment, and then there are driven brilliant types that will succeed with or without it on sheer perseverance. However - there are people between these states that would be wildly successful if they had a relaxation of resource constraints in addition to accountability, mentoring and social support. If you can deliver the package then there may be something excellent here. I hope it succeeds.
_cries in bitcoin_