
We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators - pgrote
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s10/sh/0580fed9-10ec-4ef6-8349-4b260ef8d257/a5264623e4234d6958727c0b67fa9512
======
edw519
_We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators..._

That's a fine line. The most significant innovations are often iterations.
(Google comes to mind.)

 _Why do we do this? Because we want to get rich, of course._

I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with
"of course". Real hackers do this because we just _have to_. It just so
happens that currently it's also a great way to make money. Many of us hacked
long before it was this way and many of us still hack for little or nothing
(side projects, open source, etc.)

 _But technologists used to work on big problems._

We still do, probably more than ever. But if you're busy reading Techcrunch
and going to conferences and hackathons, you'd probably never know about what
the other 99% of us are doing.

 _They did it because technology is about improving the human condition..._

There are many ways to do this, all with relative importance. Putting a man on
the moon was definitely cool, but so is getting fresh produce to your
supermarket (which probably benefits more people). Like a football team, we
hackers all do our part in the blocking, tackling, running, throwing,
catching, and scoring. It all counts.

Just a few of the things I've contributed to in the past few years ("sexy" is
in the eye of the beholder):

    
    
      - people get the right prescription medication on time
      - firetrucks and ambulances get to where they're supposed to be
      - parts that go into cars and planes are properly certified
      - prisoners are kept in jail
      - those same prisoners get proper medical care
      - electronic equipment gets assembled properly and on time
      - medical supplies get dispatched to where they're supposed to
      - insurance claims are processed properly
      - quality data is properly maintained for food items

~~~
orangethirty
Note that its not about getting rich, but about _not being broke_. A very
distinctive difference. Not being broke allows for a good life style. And
that's what most of all want.

~~~
anoncow
IMO I want to make things, cool things, innovative things, things that add
value to peoples lives, things that will save lives, things that others will
appreciate, and things that will make me happy and content.

If I could achieve this without having to think about getting rich or becoming
broke, I would. I don't want personal fame or appreciation either. I just want
to be. I just want to do.

~~~
nooneelse
Are you envisioning a monastic-like group dedicated to turning productive
making toward eradicating human suffering and the like?

~~~
carocaro
Well, I'm definitely up for being a part of said group

~~~
precisioncoder
Yeah me too, where's the sign up sheet?

------
acabal
That quote from Jeff Hammerbacher comes to mind: "The best minds of my
generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."

There's lots of genuine good to be done in the world outside of the US. A year
or two ago I did a short presentation to students in an entrepreneur class in
Monterrey, Mexico. Now Monterrey is rich even by US standards (in fact it's
just across the border), but even then there's still a lot of genuine people
problems to be solved by entrepreneurs in that country. Think of the problems
one could solve in a poorer country like the ones in Central America or poor
areas of wealthier countries in South America like Colombia, Chile, Brazil.

The example I gave the students in Mexico was the need to accept payments
online in Central/South American countries. Paypal doesn't work in many of
them and online bill pay is almost unheard of. Even in relatively wealthy
countries like Mexico and Colombia people can spend an entire afternoon in a
massive queue outside their bank to pay their cable bills in person and in
cash. Internet startups can't grow because there's no easy way to accept
payment online. Building an online payment/mobile infrastructure is a
fundamental problem that could make a lot of lives better and pave the road
for entrepreneurs in the future. It's not an easy problem and it's not really
a tech problem either, but it's not impossible!

~~~
dcalacci
This is an excellent example of a concrete problem with a foreseeable solution
that will have tangible real-world effects.

I find your comments and the original submission inspiring.

I think that the reason why so many of these recognizable problems remain
unsolved has to do with something of a snowball effect. The opportunity to do
hard work that can be seen as purely technological innovation is often more
appealing than retrofitting some technology to solve an existing problem.

To use the example you gave, _forms_ of online payment exist, and are growing.
Products like Paypal have been changing the way many companies think about
accepting payment from their customers for years; immediate online payment has
slowly been adopted by the U.S's largest banks.

However, for most of their users, these technologies exist as innovations in
luxury: they improve upon existing technologies in order to provide further
ease-of-use. This is different, I think, than applying an existing technology
to a problem: instead of _improving_ upon something, you are instead
_applying_ something to a different set of circumstances.

I think many people do not think of that as a hard problem: since the 'hard'
technology already exists, applying it should be easy.

I also think that for most ambitious people who have 'innovate' stamped at the
top of their to-do list and have the freedom of choosing what they would like
to work on, it then appears to be a choice between 'improve' and 'apply', and
improve likely wins out for most.

EDIT: I realize that I essentially re-make the 'iterate vs innovate' point the
author makes in my above comment, but I am choosing to keep it there for the
sake of coherence.

------
cllns
> A few months ago, a startup developer friend said to me "I don't understand
> why poor kids, ghetto kids, don't do startups to get out of poverty."

I've got just about zero tolerance left for people who don't acknowledge their
privilege.

~~~
orangethirty
But they do. Let me explain. I grew up in a _barrio_ , which is a latin
ghetto. Junked cars in front lawns, domestic disturbances every night,
shootings, drugs, all of that stuff. Every kid in there made money by pure
hustle. There were _no_ jobs available for any of us. Some kids cut hair (then
went on to become barbers), others worked on cars, but most sold drugs. There
were startups, but all were of the illegal variety. No one had any type of
business permit, and almost everybody sold illegal substances (including
alcohol).

Some people did make it out of poverty and went on to live productive lives.
Others, the ones that sold drugs, either ended up being junkies, dead, jailed,
or just disappeared. This due to the type of business they got into. I'm sure
that had these kids gone into real businesses like mowing lawns, painting
houses, working at a farm, selling eggs, or anything positive, they would be
good productive people.

I was lucky. At age 9 I started selling candy. Then I joined Amway at age 14.
Then I opened up my first (illegal) auto shop some years after. Why always had
the option of selling drugs, but it just wasn't attractive as a business. For
every sale I would make about a dollar. If I made 30 sales in a day (given the
competition from other dealers), then I would be putting myself at risk for
$210 week (you worked 7 days a week). Not worth it. I did not make that much
selling candy, but at least I was not getting shot at. And with Amway, made
twice as that much by selling soap.

Why did I make it out and not others? I was lucky. My parents were
professionals, the only ones in the whole barrio. The other kid's parents were
not. They also had to incur into dealing drugs, or other illegal activities.
The issue is that these people did not do this because they wanted, they did
so because _they had no other option_. Dealing drugs was the only job they
could get, much less do. So the kids were grandfathered into selling drugs,
too.

Can poor kids do startups to get out of poverty? Absolutely. But they need to
have the right information to do so. Their parents need to have legal jobs
available. But not fast food jobs, but real stuff. Construction workers,
electricians, mechanics, etc. Those jobs are gone these days.

I'm just lucky to be a software engineer. My best friend? In jail.

~~~
ja27
_Those jobs are gone these days._

I grew up mostly in an upper middle class neighborhood, but for high school,
we were bussed to a school in a more lower class area. There were a lot more
trailer parks in the area and the auto body program at my high school was
pretty popular. Just last week I was driving through that area and saw
business after business with signs outside looking to hire CNC machinists,
HVAC installers, etc. Those skilled jobs aren't gone. They're getting harder
and harder to fill. I don't think my high school even offers auto body classes
any more, but there are two college-track magnet programs there.

~~~
blhack
They're getting harder and harder to fill because they don't pay anything
anymore.

A friend of mine quit his apprenticeship as a machinist because he can make
more money doing phone tech support for a cable company.

~~~
greghinch
More money than an apprentice machinist or more money than a professional? I
would guess the former, which is a pity.

~~~
blhack
His claim was more than a professional. Apparently going rate for a CNC mill
operator is something like $14/hr.

Maybe my friend is full of it (and believe me, I gave him a TON of flak for
quitting).

~~~
greghinch
Interesting. My only experience is dealing with fabrication for motorcycle
parts. Custom CNC fabricated parts are quite expensive, and hourly rates match
that for repair work ($80-120 depending on locality)

Generally these are experienced pro's though, so guessing you gotta start at
the bottom and work up.

But that's where I say pity, thought I don't know your friend's circumstances,
and certainly if he needs the money now then it's the right choice. But so
many just choose the quick, easy money now, and as a result the skilled trades
in general are a dying art.

------
jdminhbg
> But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems,
> but whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty,
> ending disease.

Having enough surplus capital that we can take a three day trip to the Moon
seems pretty First World to me.

Which technologists worked on "ending poverty" as a primary goal? Did we stop
working on ending disease? We can't seem to decide whether we are spending way
too much on ending disease or way too little.

Articles like this keep popping up but they don't really seem to have any
point other than being self-congratulatory to the author and likeminded
audiences for how much they care about Important Things instead of Uber, which
is just for taking a car from SFO to Moscone (oh wait except it's not, it
actually turns out to have side effects that are significant benefits to
immigrant women who would otherwise be shut out of the cab industry:
[http://transpoplanner.tumblr.com/post/40777853649/is-uber-
em...](http://transpoplanner.tumblr.com/post/40777853649/is-uber-empowering-
female-drivers)).

~~~
kurtko
> Having enough surplus capital that we can take a three day trip to the Moon
> seems pretty First World to me.

Today, perhaps, but in retrospect our first manned moon mission probably bdid
more for 20th-Century technology than any other single project.

~~~
avelis
Going to the moon not only proved that we can leave our planet. Galvanized the
nation. Space created a culture and made us think about the future. Thank you
NDT.

~~~
wildgift
It also proved that we could accurately launch a rocket that could also be
used to blow the USSR to smithereens.

------
jwoah12
> _But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems,
> but whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty,
> ending disease_

I see this sentiment a lot these days, and I can't help but wonder if this is
a case of looking into the past through rose-tinted glasses. Just like how
people always talk about the "good ole' days" while selectively forgetting
about everything that was wrong during that time. Could this all be selection
bias? Decades ago, the barrier to entry to become a technologist and start a
tech company was a lot higher. Writing software was harder, more expensive,
and fewer people were trained to do it. Therefore those people had to be
especially passionate and skilled at the craft. I think this subset of
technologists still exists and is probably even larger than it was "back
then," but since there are so many more developers out there today, they make
up a smaller percentage.

~~~
npsimons
The article might be more of a personal ponderance than anything, even though
the author calls out others. Yes, everything that was wrong back then is being
ignored, so that we can focus on a simple fact: most of us are probably not
living up to our potential. So it's easier to get into business or write code
these days? That's even more reason why we shouldn't be squandering our
opportunities! Look at what you do for a living and ask yourself: is it
meaningful? Will it truly matter after you're dead and gone? Is it helping to
make the world a better place? At a bare minimum, does it make you happy?

------
austenallred
I see every innovation as a conglomeration of different things one has
experienced. Or in other words, iterations.

This goes to the core of creativity: Creativity usually comes from combining
things or ideas that are normally compartmentalized in others' minds. Have you
ever noticed how most of the startup founders you know have a wide diversity
of experiences to draw upon? Most of them have lived in foreign countries and
are well acquainted with subcultures most of us are barely even aware of. The
reason curiosity is such a positive trait is because it gives you more inputs
to operate off of. The article gives a perfect example:

"A long time ago, when I was a columnist at the Las Vegas CityLife, my editor
called me up one day and asked if me if I ever wanted to find out what was in
the storm drains under the city. And because I have notoriously poor self-
preservation skills, I grabbed a Mag-Lite and headed on down." That's the kind
of crazy, insatiable curiosity that ends in you seeing the world differently.
That's why innovators seem so crazy, but what they're doing makes complete
sense in their minds.

In other words, in my mind it's impossible to draw a line between "innovation"
and "iteration," because every innovation is really an iteration of different
ideas no one had ever really put together before.

~~~
lelandbatey
It's true. It is very hard to draw a line through what is "innovation" vs what
is "iteration." All the tiny things we build sit on top of the other tiny
things built by those before us, and in the grand scheme, everything is quite
small.

However, this makes me wonder if maybe we shouldn't be focused on
"innovating." Maybe it's not the goal (or it shouldn't be the goal). But then,
what should? What should we aspire to build or create? Should we aspire to any
particular thing? Maybe we should just do what we want and ignore what others
have to say?

I don't really know, and I'd love to hear what others thoughts are.

~~~
czr80
Aspire to solve problems.

------
jiggy2011
Totally agree. Something that I find worrying is that there is an increasing
share of the capital converging at top of society. The result of this is that
if you want to build a profitable company, you are best off getting revenue by
targeting these people rather than the middle and lower classes. Unless you
have a product like tobacco or farmville that happens to be addictive of
course.

So there are more people worried about solving problems like "I have a house
full of massive TVs but I still need to press the remote to change channels!"
than problems like "I'm poor and can't get a job".

The accepted Wisdom on HN seems to be that if you are targeting average
consumers you better make your product free because they don't have money to
pay for it. So you still need to build the business model around high net
worth people (like advertising companies).

------
jzellis
OP here. (Well, not "original poster", but "guy who wrote this".)

If anybody's interested: this is not an essay, it's my notes for a speech I
delivered at Inspire, a monthly talk series put on by Tony Hsieh's Delivering
Happiness project here in Las Vegas. The talk itself was filmed and you can
see it here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moO2EfWQOTE>

It looks like an essay because I'm a writer, and I write my talks like essays
and then kind of wing it when I'm on stage.

I am aware that bits of this aren't especially subtle, but I had eight minutes
to do the talk in.

And I apparently need to clarify what I mean by "innovation" versus
"iteration". What I meant, basically, is that the Valley right now reminds me
of Hollywood in the late 80s, where everybody was trying to pitch their new
movie as "Die Hard in/on/with an [X]". Die Hard on a train, Die Hard on a
submarine...taking some existing idea and trying to just twist it slightly
enough to capitalize on it. So we do "It's like [X] for [Y]".

Instagram for animated GIFs.

Facebook for payroll managers. (I've actually heard that one.)

Evernote for illiterates.

These are jokes, but I hope you take my point. That's what I meant by
"iteration" versus "innovation". Imagine if Jobs had said "The Apple is like
the IBM 1620, except beiger and smaller." Or if that's how he thought of it.

Personally, I think a lot of the most-hyped stuff we make in this industry is
just silly, useless bullshit that doesn't solve any real problems, or problems
that are worth solving unless you're a lazy, pampered, entitled asshole who
genuinely has a hard time with the notion of picking up one's own dry
cleaning. (That example in my speech was something featured on HN, by the
way.)

I guess if those are the problems you want to solve, go ahead, but I just feel
as though there are more pressing issues in the world...provided you can see
outside of your own circumstance.

I'm fortunate enough to have lived rich and lived poor, and while rich is
better, poor is far more prevalent in the world. I feel like poor people's
problems are more useful to solve.

But hey, I could be wrong. And I won't deny I'm being judgmental, but who
really gives a shit what I think? :-)

~~~
EvilTerran
Just an aside, but I gotta say: the line "it's hard to tell if madness drove
them into the drains or if it found them down there in the dark" gave me
goosebumps. That's a beautiful turn of phrase.

------
mindcrime
That's probably one of the best and most insightful articles I've ever read,
that used the term "first world problems". In fact, it may be the _only_
article I've ever read that used that term, that wasn't a complete joke.

There's so much truth there... we work on "stuff" and some of the "stuff" we
work on is truly amazing in many ways, but - and I don't know about you - I
sometimes find myself wondering "is this _really_ making the world a better
place, in the general sense"? Even the stuff we are doing at Fogbeam Labs,
which I am very passionate about, and even though we have very explicit core
values[1] that drive us - sometimes leaves me thinking "this isn't going to
help a poor starving child in Africa. Should I be doing something else"?

On the other hand, part of the reason we do all Open Source software is
exactly because we think producing more OSS _does_ make the world generally
better, in at least some small regard. And if some would be entrepreneur in
Africa or Afghanistan or something uses our software some day, and it helps
them succeed, grow a business and create jobs and improve lives, then we
_have_ done something very positive. But it's hard to keep that in mind
sometimes, when the chain of connections is so long and so speculative. I
sometimes want to be doing something with a more obvious and direct impact on
helping people.

[1]: [http://fogbeam.blogspot.com/2011/06/blogging-fogbeam-
custome...](http://fogbeam.blogspot.com/2011/06/blogging-fogbeam-customer-
development.html)

~~~
npsimons
I just watched "Repo Men" again, and while it's not a great movie, nor is it
directly related, it came back to haunt me while waiting in line at the bank:
I'm still really afraid of "not being", specifically not being alive. And I
asked myself, not for the first time, what's the purpose? Am I really making
the world a better place? Does it matter? Eventually I settled on my old
fallback of "well, as long as I'm happy" (which, BTW, questions like these
keep me from being happy). But this article hits close to home, as does your
comment, and there's not a day that goes by that I wish I was getting paid to
work on open source software full time. And then I think even that wouldn't be
enough, maybe I'm wasting my potential, and I should have stuck it out and
gone to grad school and maybe done something amazing. Maybe not Nash or Knuth
amazing, or Norman Borlaug amazing, but something of lasting value and worth
that made the world a better place in innumerable ways.

Volunteering in other ways can help; while the effects aren't as long lasting
or deep (but subtle), the instant gratification of helping to save a life can
be surprisingly uplifting :)

~~~
mindcrime
_And then I think even that wouldn't be enough, maybe I'm wasting my
potential, and I should have stuck it out and gone to grad school and maybe
done something amazing. Maybe not Nash or Knuth amazing, or Norman Borlaug
amazing, but something of lasting value and worth that made the world a better
place in innumerable ways._

Yeah, I know the feeling. When I started my first real programming job, I
spent a lot of time wondering if I'd made the right choice, and trying to
figure out how - if at all - this job would lead to a scenario where I could
say I changed the world in some sense. One of my biggest fears is, as you say,
to have never been (for how I define "having been"). I sometimes thing, if I
live a life where I do enough of note to one day justify having a Wikipedia
page, then I could probably live with that.

It's interesting though... I saw an interview with a UFC fighter once (I think
it might have been Dan Henderson, but don't hold me to that) where he was
asked "What are your goals in life" and said something like "I want to be in
the history books. Not the history books of ultimate fighting, but the history
books kids read in school". I feel like that sometimes, like what would make
me happy would be knowing that I left a mark behind that would outlast my
mortal self.

 _But this article hits close to home, as does your comment, and there's not a
day that goes by that I wish I was getting paid to work on open source
software full time._

Yeah, that's another reason I do find a sense of purpose in this Fogbeam Labs
thing. One of our goals is to provide a home for people like you (and me, and
many others) who want to work on OSS stuff, but want to get paid as well.
Basically, one big reason I want to create a company, is because the "company
I would want to work for" doesn't exist, so I figure I'll just create it
myself. If we succeed, I'd love to one day have Fogbeam Labs known as "a great
home for hackers". I'm convinced we'll get there, but man, is it a lot of
work! :-)

 _Volunteering in other ways can help; while the effects aren't as long
lasting or deep (but subtle), the instant gratification of helping to save a
life can be surprisingly uplifting_

There's a lot to be said for various kinds of volunteering. In my case, I
spent about a decade as a volunteer firefighter. That was a wild experience in
so many more ways than I could ever tell. Some good, some bad, but at least
all during that time I always knew I was doing _something_ to really
contribute to the world. Now, I never literally pulled somebody out of a
burning building seconds before it collapsed, or any story-book stuff. But we
responded to a few fires, make interior attacks, and knocked down the fire at
an early enough stage to save the home, on a few occasions. So, I can take
heart in knowing that, somewhere out there, are a handful of people who didn't
have to go through digging through the remnants of a burnt home, and
rebuilding from scratch, etc., and that I played a role in that. To this day,
I probably still look back on some of those experiences as the most meaningful
ones I've had in my life.

------
rmrfrmrf
This is the kind of post that happens when someone gets so wrapped up in
startup land that they lose all context of the "real world."

These "first world problem"-solving companies he's talking about are really
just B2B companies made to help the ACTUAL, real-world problem solving
companies do their jobs more easily. No customer cares about MailChimp. No
consumer thinks about Twilio. They're not solving first-world problems,
they're solving BUSINESS problems.

Downplay the importance of those companies all you like, but making one
company's business operations better in turn allows that company to reach out
and help more people.

~~~
calinet6
This is all well and good, but I think the point is that there is an
imbalance, and very few tech startups are going after the big problems these
days.

There are some notable ones, but it seems to be the road less traveled.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
_> This is all well and good, but I think the point is that there is an
imbalance, and very few tech startups are going after the big problems these
days._

But, my point is that these companies are _indirectly_ going after the big
problems by taking care of the little things. There are companies of 1 to 2
people who can now outsource almost every physical aspect of their service so
that they can focus on their core product. Do I hire a team of sysadmins and
technicians to maintain a server farm to 1) pay, 2) train, 3) meet with
regularly, or do I simply host my service on AWS? One could argue that AWS is
nothing but a first-world solution, but hey, it's responsible for hosting a
HUGE number of companies! These "small", "iterative", "derivative" services
can have a huge impact on industries. Just because they're not devoted to
saving Africa or rescuing animals or ending world hunger doesn't mean they're
not important.

 _> There are some notable ones, but it seems to be the road less traveled._

It's funny that you mention the 'road less traveled'. People use that phrase
in allusion to Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken," where the narrator opines
about coming to a fork in the road and wondering about how his life would be
different had he taken the other path.

The funny part is that Frost was really being sarcastic and basically saying
that it makes no difference which road you'll take. So yes, you can "go after
the big problems" consciously and take that "road less traveled," but in the
end, BOTH paths can result in solving big problems (or not solving anything).

------
a_p
My favorite resource about software innovation is David A. Wheeler's list of
the most important software innovations.[1] Most of the items on the list are
from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and 90s; just one is from the past ten years
(Wheeler was at first ambivalent about even adding it). He also makes the
point that it is okay _not_ to be innovative, and quotes Linus Torvalds:

    
    
      "People want to hear about the one big idea that changes the world, but that’s not how the world works. It’s not about visionary ideas; it’s about lots of good ideas which do not seem world-changing at the time, but which turn out to be great after lots of sweat and work have been applied."
    

[1]<http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html>

~~~
subsystem
I would say various p2p technologies has been properly innovative in the last
10(ish) years, at least in application. Skype, Torrent, BitCoin etc.

------
lubujackson
The innovator-iterator argument seems to be a red herring. The real issue here
is building bullshit apps vs. helpful apps. I think focusing on making helpful
apps is a more important message to developers than trying to "fix poverty in
Africa" which is a nice goal but not something any web developer is likely
going to impact.

The reality is no one is going to come up with an idea like mFarm without
REALLY understanding that audience. You won't understand an entire ecosystem
just by sitting on the corner. If you want to help Kenyans, instead find some
promising Kenyan entrepreneurs and offer to be their code monkey, review their
code or host their website. I think humility is crucial if you want to
contribute to a market you don't fully understand.

~~~
jzellis
Absolutely agreed. Which is why I'm trying to specifically do that right now.
(If it's not obvious, I'm the guy who delivered this speech.)

But I absolutely disagree that web developers can't impact poverty in Africa
(or, maybe more importantly, in their own town). To be perfectly frank, I
merely think most of us in this industry don't give a shit one way or another.
Which is fine, but I'm perfectly happy to judge people all day long for
thinking that way. ;-)

~~~
ippisl
I wonder if we could connect more innovators to environments and communities
with real problems, in some interesting way , and by this connection enable
those innovators to gain perspective, knowledge and connections to work on the
problem ?

Something that's built in such a way that a community create a lot of
knowledge about the problem and context(general situation, current solutions
and their limitations) , but maybe not the solution, so people could be more
motivated to implement their invented solutions?

------
Ixiaus
I agree with the sentiment of the article, Steve Blank gave a somewhat more
enlightening talk about this topic at SXSW (I can't remember what it was
titled, but here's the slides from the talk - it's all I could find:
[http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/steve-blank-
stanford-s...](http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/steve-blank-stanford-
sxsw-lean-startup-2013))

"Porn" was a terrible example, btw. I imagine Porn is more difficult to get
rich at then by copy-pasting and iterating on an idea in a space where VC
funding is flying and it's the "popular" thing to do.

Porn, I'm sure, is extremely difficult to raise funding for and I'll bet
licensing from the actual producers of porn is costly. What about user
generated porn sites? I'll bet their revenue models are even more scary and
only a few actually make it by pushing camsite adverts on you.

[EDIT] To finish what I was saying, I believe as a programmer, not porn but
HFT or working for finance/quant firms would be a good parallel for "getting
rich".

------
squozzer
>But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems, but
whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty, ending
disease.

Sending humans to the Moon was (and apparently still is) a First World
problem, unless you intend to terraform and colonize it with a social cross-
section of humanity.

Smart people are still working on the other big problems, but they require a
lot of time and resources -- heavily concentrated in a relatively small number
of organizations I might add -- while the rest of us have to satisfy ourselves
with making money and a life relatively free of heroic deeds.

------
kayoone
Innovation isnt black and white and happens on many levels.

Theres your innovative app that lets you hire private taxis for getting around
town.

Theres your new 3D Game Engine that introduces a few new features and pushes
the boundaries of computer graphics.

Theres a guy in india building cheap bicycles from cardboard.

Theres your electric car company that pushes our understanding of a good all-
electric car to new levels.

Theres your Space company that makes Space endeavours a lot less expensive and
wants to put humans on Mars in 10 years.

This is all iteration, standing on the shoulders of giants and all, but its
also innovation, just on completely different scales.

------
lmm
Are porn sites really that easy to make money from? The impression I've had
from here is that while there's lots of money to be made, there's also lots of
competition and the business relationships you need can be difficult to obtain
and keep.

~~~
jiggy2011
The business models that seem to work in porn are either:

1) Provide lots of free content, get users to upload it themselves and just be
on hand to deal with DMCA takedowns etc. SEO the hell out of your site with
every technique you can get your hands on, finance it with aggressive ads and
concentrate your efforts on a/b testing to get the maximum number of ad
clicks.

2) Produce high quality , unique content and charge for access. You need very
regular updates (almost daily) and you need somebody full time issuing DMCA
takedown notices in order to beat the pirates. Basically you need to make it
easy for your customers to just sit back and fap rather than combing tube
sites and closing popups to find the content they want.

It also seems to help if you can somehow sell it as "art porn" so that people
won't feel embarrassed recommending it to their friends. Also perhaps build a
community around the porn in some way.

Note: I don't work in porn, so I don't know too much but this seems to be my
observations based on which sites stick around.

------
PixelPusher
I'm a 'ghetto' kid. Grew up in LA and El Salvador.

The reason I haven't done a startup is because i simply don't have the
monetary support. I have to pay for my mom and family, pay rent, etc. We don't
have the privilege of a circle of people with money.

Our parents couldn't afford to send us to college, in fact it's better for
them that we start working as early as possible. Our past generations weren't
scientists, lawyers, etc. They were immigrants, mostly farm and home workers.
So, we're one of the first generations to even have the opportunity to be
lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.

The author is right, and a lot of people can't relate or even think about
those types of problems.

But, the problems he listed are still pretty dear in our hearts and perhaps
the next few generations will tackle it.

------
alxbrun
Regarding iteration vs. innovation, I'm so mad each time I hear about Square,
Stripe, Balanced, etc. etc. as _innovations_ in the payments space.

Find me a way to get rid of the absurd 3% worldwide tax that Visa, Amex,
Mastercard take on _every_ payment for almost NO added value (well there was
added value 30 years ago, but today ?) and then, OK, let's call this
innovation.

------
fijal
I'm sorry, but just stop living in your bubble and you'll be fine. There are
great people out there doing great things, using technology, they just don't
happen to be prominently featured on the site that takes "what can be
delivered in two weeks" to new levels. Look for example at the stuff praekelt
foundation is doing - <http://www.praekeltfoundation.org/> (videos are short
enough for most attention spans), or actually, wikipedia.

------
kyro
The reason very few are truly innovating on a global level is because nobody
wants to put in the decades studying to become an expert in any one field --
and I don't blame them. I've been seesawing between two life decisions lately:
1) Do I continue with medicine, become super-specialized and _then_ look for a
way to use my expertise to bring innovation to the world and become wealthy,
or 2) Do I use whatever knowledge I've acquired now, play my hand at creating
something that'll most likely not be deemed innovative and try to get wealthy
that way?

There are good arguments to be made on both sides. On the one hand I'd love to
create something truly groundbreaking, but on the other, I don't want to toil
away my life for decades and finally reach success with only a few decades of
my life to live. Who says I need to innovate in the first place? I've only got
80 years here to live, why not make as much money as I can, as quickly as
possible, and live my life to its absolute fullest.

Of course, these arguments are based on the assumption that your goal is to
become wealthy and to innovate. It's a time issue for me. I don't for one
second look down on people working on the next hot social app because there's
a chance they may cash out far earlier than had they labored away in a lab
studying the subjects that'll really push humans forward.

In the end, there's no great metric by which our accomplishments wil be
judged. If you wanna spend your hours on a new email app, fine, and if you
wanna spend your years studying photosynthetic biochemical photomicroscopy,
then go for it. There's no right or wrong.

~~~
dcalacci
thought experiment:

If someone had the skills, ability, and opportunity to tangibly help a large
group of people through their work, but instead chose to work on the "next hot
social app" in order to gain personal wealth (assume both were "one-time"
opportunities, and mutually exclusive), would you hold that person to be
ethically unjust?

------
calinet6
Completely agree, great article.

There are a lot of companies working on a lot of very small problems these
days. It's natural, since the economic imbalance makes it more worthwhile to
solve small problems for a large number of people who have disposable money to
pay for small solutions.

But there are big problems out there that we should be inspired to solve.

Let's solve the meta-problem: what's holding us back from being able to think
of solutions to the bigger problems facing humanity? What's the cause of our
collective myopia?

~~~
wildgift
It's easier to sell things to people with spending money than to sell things
to people without spending money.

------
bguthrie
From the OP:

    
    
        But technologists used to work on big problems.
    

Many still do. And some technologists used to work on small problems, and some
still do. There never was a perfect time in which every technologist ran
around working on the Biggest Problem They Could Find.

------
obviouslygreen
This is certainly true for a lot of people who work in startups. However, the
author seems to believe that "we" encompasses not just him and his short-
sighted friend, but anyone working on a startup.

1\. No, not everyone in this position confuses "iteration" with "innovation."

2\. No, not all people who are working on startups or startup products
consider themselves "innovators."

3\. No, all of us certainly do not confuse "poverty" with "lack of startup
initiative."

Yeah, most of what "we," in the sense the author seems to mean, do is
iteration (at best). But suggesting that this is a standard mistake is a
confusing assumption and, to me, suggests that beyond the iteration/innovation
mistake, the author has made so many generalizations that by making one point
he's missed several that are painfully similar.

------
Hario
This is the best thing I've read on Hacker News in a long time.

~~~
scrapcode
Very motivating and enlightening. You took the words right from me. It
definitely hits home, and should be strongly considered by many.

------
mtp0101
False dichotomy out of helping the poor/helping the rich. Taking advantage of
the neomarxist undercurrent of bay area culture and the information technology
industry by framing technology as a method of helping the proletariat escape
their unfortunate circumstances. Innovation/iteration binary unclear and
implicitly related to the helping the poor/helping the rich binary. It is a
bad idea to go sit in a poor area with a forty to come up with startup ideas
relative to other things one could do. Other than drinking a 40 and loving the
poor, the author offers little specific guidance to entrepreneurs.

------
orangethirty
Being an iterator is the right thing to do. Real innovation happens over time
(innovation follows the same process as evolution). You can't simply invent a
car without a wheel. Imagine trying to build a car without every learning the
dynamics of a wheel first. Instead of focusing on making new things, go ahead
and pick something that exists and improve on it. Don't build the next
Facebook, but improve upon it. Don't build the next Google, improve upon it
(which is why I'm doing Nuuton). Iterate. Improve. In ten years, you will have
a completely new product by working on the same old one.

------
ibudiallo
The author may have used the words innovator and iterator, but I think the
stronger message is just we need to stop valuing useless but addictive
technological feats and go for what actually make a difference.

------
tjbiddle
I know this is the smallest part I could take out of the post.. but Fremont -
Ghetto? Maybe OP meant East Palo Alto, or Oakland, but IMO Fremont is one of
the safest, homey places to live in the Bay Area.

But then again, maybe I'm hanging out on that "One Block" - But I guess that
block encompasses 12mi^2 :-).

More on topic - I wouldn't agree completely. Some startups are new completely,
some are building things a little bit better, some are just using technology
to re-invent something for the 21st century. If you're limiting your example
startups then you can make any point you want.

~~~
swinnipeg
He means Fremont street in Las Vegas. The area surrounding it is largely
populated by places to gamble and find bail bondsmen. Very un-Palo Alto.

~~~
tjbiddle
Haha. That makes a bit more sense. Thanks for the clarification!

------
lukejduncan
A well written iteration on a common theme on HN: where are the big problems
and why aren't we working on them.

------
liuliu
I don't like the negativity associated with "first world" problem. The "first
world" problems are very much real. If you believe that the rest of the world
will catch up eventually with the "first world", they will have these "first
world" problems too. We need to solve these "first world" problems. The only
argument against it suggests a darker future where there is, and will always
be, a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and the poor will stagnate
forever. I don't choose to believe that.

~~~
BoredAstronaut
There are first world problems, and then there are "white whines".

Solving the problems of wealthy people might be rewarding and enriching (for
the solver), but the actual impact on the world is generally much less than if
you solved more pressing problems.

It's a law of diminishing returns. After a while, people should be able to
solve their own problems. What they do instead is to redefine "problem" from
"life-threatening risk" to "banal annoyance".

If you save a child from dying from cholera, they might grow up and change the
world themselves. If you make it more convenient for spoiled white people to
buy more shit to fill up their meaningless lives, not so much.

------
jaxn
Completely off-topic, but relevant to HN...

That is the first time I have ever seen evernote used this way. What a neat
way to publish! Seems like it would be a great fit for something like PG's
papers.

------
guylhem
_> So why didn’t I? Why didn’t you? Why didn’t we?_

Because I don't care about such problems. I care about doing stuff I a)
understand or might get more understanding from b) believe I can do c) find
fun in solving d) get paid too.

Your argument is that people don't because of a lack of information - it's not
fully so. I know some problems I could work on, which would help other people.
I chose not to, because it's an endless tunnel, and it's no fun.

How exactly do you propose to force me - or anyone else - to work on the
problems you believe are the most important? Were are your guns ?

To put that in simpler words, if I don't believe your problems fit by abcd
criteria, I will not work on them. You may find "public shaming" a useful tool
for your deeds, but you will find that it only works a limited amount of
times.

Now please excuse me if I don't engage in your guilt trip and instead spend
time do stuff I want, which may be in your list of important things, or might
not.

[The only real argument there is in the conclusion: we could be concerned if
we, as the human race, were collectively not doing stuff we wanted to do
because of a lack of ambition, or to follow the 'large base' pyramid example,
didn't sell stuff to poor people.

I must say I'm sometimes worried about people lacking ambition, and like in
this post engaging in empty rhetorics instead of actually doing stuff -
whatever "stuff" might me, even an hello world...]

------
mongol
YES! That is so true. How many times have you not heard "we should not invent
the wheel again". To this I always thought to myself (but seldom said) - but
the wheel is invented over and over again. New wheels for new purposes, better
working for their purpose, whether F1 cars, Jumbo Jets, trains, trolleys,
carts etc etc. However it is so true - the wheel is not reinvented, it is
improved, iterated over again. And it is just like it should be

------
mattsfrey
An interesting thought developed after reading this and the follow up
comments. The ultimate translation of the sentiments in this post is simply to
focus your efforts on underexploited markets, not some push for greatness in
innovation.

Most people end up solving problems they see in their daily lives, which do
indeed end up being trifles aka first worlds problems etc given the
demographic of start up founders. Focusing on serving third world nations or
less developed regions can work to enhance their lives, but its simple a shift
in market focus, not a real push to further science or be on the cutting edge
of innovation. IMO there is nothing particularly innovating about making a sms
based service for Kenyan farmers, it's just a clever use-case of existing
technology to serve an underexploited market.

The reason we have a lull in true innovation is because we have hit a
saturation point in the larger realm of technology. There is only so much you
can do with computers, the internet, and lastly, smart phones. We're waiting
on the next big thing.

------
jacquesm
We can call ourselves whatever we want. In the end it does not matter at all,
it is what _others_ will call you what matters.

------
drcube
Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. Iteration _is_ innovation.
Sometimes you just happen to be lucky enough to stumble on something big and
important when you're iterating. But it's the same process, it only looks
different in hindsight.

~~~
reportingsjr
I was going to post this comment if it wasn't already here! Pretty much every
innovation/invention that has ever occurred has been taking past inventions
and adding just a small new thing. Of course, there are plenty of completely
new inventions (transistors, lasers, etc), but they are few and far between.

Standing on the shoulders of giants!

------
9999
Who is he saying is the third largest corporation on the planet? Privately
held? Publicly? Largest in what sense, market capitalization? I'd really like
to know who he actually means there. I assume he means a private company since
he refers to ("the family that owns it"). In that case is he referring to
Mars? Or maybe he means Wal-Mart, who do not appear to be the third largest
corp, but the majority shareholders are a single family. They're also renowned
exploiters of the working class, so they don't seem to be a very positive
model to emulate if you wanted to make the world a better place.

~~~
jzellis
Wal-Mart is, according to Wikipedia, the third largest privately-held
corporation in the world, after Shell Oil and Exxon.

And no, they're not a good model to emulate, that wasn't my point. :-) This
was an eight minute speech, and the text you're reading was my notes for it,
not the final version, so some of the subtlety gets lost.

~~~
9999
Thanks for the clarification. Is there a recording of your full speech? I like
your basic premise, although I would certainly say that Costco is a much
better corporation when it comes to serving the working class (in employment
and in services rendered to consumers) than WalMart.

------
pgrote
News article discussing the event where presented:

[http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2013/mar/27/joe-
downtown-...](http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2013/mar/27/joe-downtown-
downtown-too-insular-its-own-good/)

------
chipsy
It really shouldn't matter whether you're doing one or the other. You need
availability and quality of other things in your ecosystem to make the big
leaps. And when you do make the leap, it tends to look trivial.

------
RougeFemme
_But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems, but
whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty, ending
disease._

Point taken, but. . .not sure I agree that technologists were that involved
with trying to end povery. Well, they were certainly involved, but I don't
think they were the drivers. And I think sending humans to the moon was
definitely a first world "problem" - not even on the list of priorities for
third-word nations.

~~~
pjscott
Remember the green revolution?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution>

That was huge, and new technology was what made it possible.

------
up_and_up
> mFarm isn't hot and sexy. It's not the kind of thing that generally gets a
> Valley VC to reach for their wallet.

My friend and I built TargetMobi, <http://www.targetmobi.com> along a similar
vein. In Africa, SMS is everywhere and our goal was to help companies and
organizations connect with their users via SMS.

Unfortunately, we found zero Angel/VC interest in this and have since pivoted
a few times.

I think the overall approach still has potential though.

------
gdubs
I'm reminded of a book "Old Masters and Young Geniuses"[1]. The author makes a
case that experimental iterators make their biggest contributions at an older
age, whereas the artists who take bold conceptual leaps often achieve artistic
success at a much younger age. Neither approaches are considered more or less
innovative; some just arrive there more quickly.

1\. <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8019.html>

------
hawkharris
Here's the issue: the people who are solving so-called "whole-world" problems
generally don't describe themselves as technologists.

In other words, they use technology as a tool in broader campaigns aimed at
solving societal problems. To name just one example of many, take a look at
how the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is using apps to combat childhood
obesity.

For people who are really affecting change, technology is a tool rather than a
shiny new toy or a means to an end.

------
clintjhill
Don't forget to look at industries where maybe there already exists large
solutions or organizations, but aren't doing as much as can be done to help
those that need it most. Education and Healthcare are a few of these. You
might not make billions of dollars improving Kindergarten classes in North
America, but you could "change" the world.

------
gmu3
I feel like the author somewhat contradicts himself when he implies the poor
ghetto types will never be innovators but says the rest of us are all blinded
from the "very real problems that the rest of humanity faces." If you really
felt that way, wouldn't the ghetto types have a big advantage if they can get
over their resource problems.

~~~
jzellis
I apologize if I implied that poor people will never be innovators, that
wasn't my intention. I meant to suggest that those of us who already have
these skills share them with people who don't...including, I probably should
have explicitly said, teaching them those skills.

~~~
parnas
what skills? what skills?

~~~
jzellis
Technological skills. My target audience (literal audience; this was a speech)
were, by and large, people in the tech sector.

------
michaelwww
There's an app for tractor roll-overs. That's innovation by the author's
definition:

[http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/news/livestock/there-s-an-
app...](http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/news/livestock/there-s-an-app-for-
tractor-rollovers/article_3b450d94-86a0-11e2-bbc3-001a4bcf887a.html)

------
jacoblyles
This is why I joined Coursera instead of starting another startup when I left
the one I founded. There are few things more exciting that a web developer
could be working on today than access for education for everyone. Big
movements are happening in online ed. Tectonic shifts are happening.

------
MicahWedemeyer
From what I can find, this is the author's company: <http://openfi.re/>

"A crowdfunding platform for long-term, socially valuable projects."

Perhaps the author does not mean iterator in a derogatory way? Obviously, his
own company is an iteration on the existing crowdfunding wave.

------
fudged71
It's great to think that the technology that we are consuming in the third
world is going to trickle down, but I'm starting to wonder whether or not
that's true.

Phones are sold until they have minor issues, then trashed. Software products
are discontinued instead of being made open source.

We need to tackle these issues.

------
ececconi
How is sending a person to the moon a whole world problem? what "problem" did
it solve in the world?

~~~
michaelwww
How to make a backup of life on earth in case of a planetary extinction event,
assuming that those off planet could start over once things calmed down.

~~~
pjscott
It also developed a lot of the basic technology we'd need to avert a large
asteroid impact. I doubt this was anybody's goal, but it sure happened.

------
wildermuthn
The solution to poverty is neither wealth nor innovation. The heroic acts
required to address poverty are precisely the heroic acts excluded by the OP —
the solidarity shown by Mother Theresa. You can't harrow hell while resting in
heaven.

------
mustefaj
I love the title...it makes me want to just keep the rhyme going...

"Others are just nay sayers, but on HN we just rhyme sayers, but I'll just get
down voted by a bunch of HN-taking-things-too seriously player haters.

------
iagomr
Great post, finally someone that you'll read about has finally said it. Isn't
it demeaning to name every helpless or copycat project as a "startup" ? Next
step, show this to Techcrunch.

------
djbender
I consider myself a remixer. Related, I recommend this video series on the
topic: <http://www.everythingisaremix.info>

------
BoredAstronaut
I'm not sure how long the OP has been an arm-chair social scientist, but I've
been one for twenty-five years, and I feel like I might be able to share some
insights.

Firstly, his thesis could be boiled down to a very simple question: "Why do
people do what they do (instead of what I want them to do)?" You suggest that
they are insufficiently self-reflective, not very world-wise, and perhaps just
a bit self-centred. These are reasonable inferences, but they don't go very
deeply into understand the psychology, beliefs and motivations of your
stereotypical spoiled white kid.

A deeper question we might ask in response to your thesis is, "What's wrong
with the world (and why is nobody fixing it)?" The sub-question might
alternately be: "Why aren't enough people fixing it?" or "Why aren't the right
people fixing it?" Neé spoiled rich kids.

The problem with both questions is that they are primarily underscored by the
implicit question, "Why aren't more people like me (and why don't they believe
and feel like I do)?" But the answer to that is simple: evolution. Biological
evolution ensures that there is a wide variety of people, physiologically, and
social evolution (not Social Darwinism, thank you -- no ranking is being
proposed) ensures that there are a wide variety of belief systems and mental
models of how the world works and why.

But let's, for the moment, make the (unfounded and highly unlikely) assumption
that the OP's point of view is somehow more informed, insightful, rational, or
just generally "better" than those of all the people whom he is criticizing. I
mean, he wouldn't have made the argument if he didn't think it had more merit
than other arguments in favour of "iterating" or whatever other less noble
activity they are pursuing instead. And he may be right (it's only unlikely
based on probability, and the apparent level of effort pursued in constructing
said argument).

People do what they do because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is in
their interests. Either directly, in terms of immediate material rewards,
through indirect rewards (material, social or even spiritual), or future
rewards to their offspring. That is a basic economic tenet that is difficult
to ignore. (It is hard to disprove, partly because "rewards" are variable and
ill-defined). Stated another way, people do things because they think (or
feel) that it is right (or reasonable) to do, or just because they want to do
them.

It may be for riches, or that may merely be a subordinate goal towards
pleasure, happiness, fulfillment or meaning. My suspicion is that people are
primarily motivated by status (a measure of what is meaningful) when they
behave in ways that affect their social surroundings, but otherwise they like
pleasure, whether sensual, aesthetic or moral (and the pride or satisfaction
from doing good is definitely a pleasure, as is that of winning, which could
be called a moral activity, if you believe you are better than other people
and deserve to win).

But not only do people do what they believe is good for their interests, they
also don't do things that they think are bad for their interests, which is the
true meaning of "wasting time": actions without real consequence (as estimated
by the agent). This isn't bad or evil. Most people simply do not know how to
"change the world" in a manner which will satisfy the OP, or at best have a
very vague notion, and very little reason to be confident that they could do
it. In other words, people engage in activities which they consider to have a
reasonable chance of success. Exactly how they arrived at their estimate of
risk/reward is another question.

But in fact it is the ultimate question, since that is where the rubber meets
the road. The extent to which someone is misinformed, delusional or outright
insane is something that has to be determined for each individual. But we can
generalize that the vast majority of people do not have the necessary
knowledge, skills, insights and experience to go about saving the world. Nor
do they have the right social connections, or affiliations with groups which
are changing the world (and have no interest in becoming fund-raisers hanging
out on malls and street corners), and are generally discouraged from
participating in such marginal activities by their elders and role models, for
many reasons (some or all of which may be ill-reasoned, based on false
premises, and riddled with superstitions, false authority and bias, and yet
are nevertheless core to the world view which these people have at their
disposal).

So, for the OP's sake, maybe it's time that he revised his viewpoint on what
is wrong with the world, and how to change it. Not by writing blog posts
accusing others of failing to live up to his standards (yes, this could be
ironic, but in fact I am not judging the OP's career or life goals, merely his
argument), but instead by either a) trying to understand better why people
don't, in fact, share his beliefs and values, and/or b) by learning how to
impart his own wisdom in such a way that he has some modicum of hope in
actually affecting the views of other people, rather than just appealing to a
crowd of like-minded people with whom he can share his sense of superiority.

On the other hand, maybe that was his goal, and maybe he achieved it, so good
for him!

~~~
sarde
As someone who seriously considered becoming an academic economist, I think
you're spot on in your analysis about human motivation except for one thing:
altruism.

Altruism does exist, and not just because people want the "good feeling" of
having done "good deeds."

I've seen Levitt of the University of Chicago speak several times about an
altruism experiment that economists conducted showing the lack of altruism in
people. In response, one of the audience members once sent him $20 in an
envelope and said, "Explain this."

While that's a facetious example, there's plenty of examples of more self-less
altruism towards strangers. I think plenty of research shows the altruistic
motive towards families, which is partly motivated by evolution.

But altruism towards strangers?

I think an interesting experiment to conduct would be a double blind
experiment regarding altruism. Put someone in a situation where they can help,
hurt, or ignore someone in need, and there is no cost to the subject of
picking any of the three options. But they get no reward for doing the good
deed, and no one is watching.

(Of course this experiment is sort of impossible by design, cuz the
experimenter has to be watching)

How many people choose to do the good deed without social affirmation of their
good deed?

Maybe I'll reconsider pursuing that PhD in Economics.

~~~
qu4z-2
You are very quick to dismiss psychological egoism :) _(Not that it's a very
useful hypothesis, really)_

I'm undecided on the matter, but the $20 thing is clearly not self-less
altruism. Someone willing to spend $20 to prove they're "right"? I'm just not
convinced.

Your experiment sounds interesting. I worry that people would still expect to
be judged for it though (I mean, if they know they're participating in an
experiment, they're expecting the results to be recorded and/or being watched,
as you say). Also I expect that decades of acting a certain way due to being
observed by society will form some pretty strong habits. Sounds fascinating
none-the-less :)

------
D9u
"Sequence, selection, & iteration." These are the foundations of software, so
how should we _not_ be iterators?

------
sauron21
Wow, the discussions on this thread are very civil and polite. (I'm new to HN)
Faith in the human race=restored.

------
kurtko
Iteration != innovation, but the two certainly can overlap in a venn diagram.

------
seanmcdirmid
We call ourselves inventors, but many of us are really just innovators.

FRFY, Jeesh.

------
aortega
What kind of wanker call himself an innovator?

------
wildgift
It was going OK until he said to get a 40 and drink it on the curb. Fuck you,
whatever the fuck your name was.

~~~
jzellis
Why fuck me? I mean, I'm just curious. If you're going to tell a stranger on
the Internet "fuck you", it might be illuminating to find out why.

And it's Josh. Josh Ellis. Since you sort-of asked.

~~~
wildgift
You're deploying a really fucked up stereotype of poor people being heavy
drinkers and alcoholics. It's like saying let's go to the ghetto and
participate in the culture by doing something self-destructive and negative.
That kind of slumming is offensive.

You might as well have said go to a Mexican neighborhood and buy some weed and
smoke out on the corner, or say go to a Black neighborhood and buy some crack
and smoke it in the car, and then check out how fucked up the situation is.

Or how about go to the trailer park, buy some speed, snort it and check out
how jacked up the hillbillies are.

I read the whole article, and even share some of your sentiments, but that one
part really upset me. It kind of killed the article for me.

~~~
jzellis
You didn't have context. It's not an article, it's notes for a talk I gave.
The audience were a bunch of Las Vegas hacker kids and entrepreneur types, who
tend to be forty drinkers anyway. It was shorthand for "sit and chill
outside". Which I think they understood.

On the other hand, I've spent a lot of time being poor and being around poor
people -- in the ghetto, in rural trailer parks, etc -- and actually, in my
extensive experience, poor people do tend to be heavy drinkers. Are you
seriously suggesting that sitting around in the hood getting your beer on
isn't a staple of working class life? If so, we've been experiencing
completely different parts of America.

~~~
wildgift
There are drinkers of all classes, but I think people who have more money
drink more alcohol, and more people drink at all. That's been my experience.
Just to verify, I did a search on the topic, and research bears it out.

[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/drinking-
statistic...](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/drinking-statistics-
by-income-080210)

The one big difference is how and when people drink. I think poor people tend
to drink at home, maybe in the yard, out in the sun, but don't drink at bars.
Middle class people are more likely to drink at bars, or drink indoors at
home. That's what you do when you have more money and nicer interiors. :) (And
it's probably easy to quit drinking when you can't afford it.)

The exception might be winos and alkies, who are poor because they are alkies.
I think the constant presence of socially non-functional addicts in poor
communities is probably a contributor to the stats in the linked article.

And that article states something that I mentioned in another comment: that
people with more money drink to socialize and network.

[Edit: I can see how the statement would work for that audience... but it's
still a damaging stereotype. Now we know it's not grounded in fact, and worse
than I thought.]

