This could start to change if present US hostility towards all things foreign results in a shift in investment and migration.
Yup, it was surprise seeing that once have a good STEM field Ph.D., written a lot of STEM and (early) AI software, and have published some peer-reviewed papers, are then condemned as in a felony conviction from ever having money enough to buy a house or to participate in the real world. A surprise.
But so far have missed the law that actually forbids doing some good math research, writing corresponding software, starting an LLC business as a sole proprietor, self-hosting a related Web site, getting users, running ads, and making (oops, forgive the transgression of mentioning) MONEY. Horrors! Uh, that's actually the same kind of "money" that people selling food, clothing, cars, and houses and providing medical care, private K-college education talk about.
Gee, cut out a lot of middle stuff, i.e., save on management, lawyers, office space, recruiting, HR legal issues, insurance, utilities, software developers, cloud fees, server farm staff, servers (an AMD FX 8350 can send a lot of the Web pages with still image banner ads), ....
Just now evaluating Macrium Reflect. Anyone have any experience? Uh, will it copy a disk partition that has a bootable instance of Windows so that the target disk partition will also be bootable or will it copy only whole hard disks with all the partitions, ....???? Similarly for Acronis and Windows Image. E.g., if make an Image of a bootable partition, will the partition written to boot? Right, just use the TIFO method!
The canonical example here is 5G. Once again the US science establishment had the guy, he ends up doing the breakthroughs for polar coding, they failed to appreciate him, he left and ended up being funded by Huawei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdal_Ar%C4%B1kan
The US science establishment isn't broken as an innovation engine because of Trump - it's because they're clearly rewarding the wrong things.
What isn't so clear is if Chinese science is creating Chinese startups. It may yet happen.
Such as?
When you build something to the point where there is a bureaucratic "establishment" in control you can be sure that innovation slows to a crawl. You may still have a few individual scientists doing great work, but you can be sure that some miserable bureaucrat will pat him on the back and stick it in a drawer somewhere never to see the light of day again. The same is true whether that bureaucratic establishment is at a government or in universities, or any other type of bureaucratic organization.
This isn't a value judgement. Engineering is just as important as science, but just as more science is not a replacement for engineering, neither does better engineering free us from the need to keep pursuing science. And at the end of the day, SpaceX might be an impressive engineering company, but we still need the scientists. And it's weird how often the success of SpaceX is brought up as an implicit argument that we can send all the scientists to work on farms or whatever without any ill effects.
It also seems notable that a company like SpaceX is an obvious candidate to bring back the 20th century style corporate funded scientific research organizations to underpin their engineering efforts in a way that would presumably be free of the hated "bureaucracy". But if they've done so, I haven't heard about it.
Oh wait..they did...
Because NASA thought reusable rockets were possible decades ago. The reason they never built them was because certain Congressmen blocked the funding.
SpaceX is notorious in the aeronautical industry for attempting to interfere in the research and funding of other companies. Over a decade ago a competitor had viable plans for a 2 stage rocket... until Musk sued to block the funding.
It surely was the first to actually make a reusable orbital rocket.
> It was just the first one owned by a billionaire that convince other people to fund it.
Elon Musk became a billionaire in 2012, when they were already working on reusability. They didn't even need that much money to develop it, they mostly experimented with it on operational flights for their customers. Anyway, companies in the industry could also assign/obtain funds to do it, but they chose not to (until Blue Origin and the current wave of space startups).
> SpaceX is notorious in the aeronautical industry for attempting to interfere in the research and funding of other companies. Over a decade ago a competitor had viable plans for a 2 stage rocket... until Musk sued to block the funding.
Source? Never heard anything like that.
I feel like you're confusing "science" and "engineering". SpaceX is fundamentally an engineering company, not a scientific one. Don't get me wrong, they've done impressive work in engineering innovation, but that's fundamentally different from scientific research. And as the article points out, engineering innovation from the likes of SpaceX is usually reliant on that foundational scientific innovation, which in turn is essentially useless without an engineering partner to realize scientific discoveries.
> It doesn't look like the science establishments of any country are actually successfully feeding their innovation machines, or have done so for decades.
Really? Is it just a coincidence that up until recently the US had some of the most robust scientific funding and was an unbeatable source of engineering innovation? For that matter, are there any real counterexamples where science research is non-existent but engineering excellence abounds?
Military spending is largely economic dead weight, roughly the equivalent of handouts. And the end result is deterrence in a game of prisoners dilemma. Yet it is sacrosanct, and subject to ever increasing budgets for no gain.
(Another fun fact is defense companies make fewer profits during war, not more. Presumably because they have to make real products instead of designing imaginary ones.)
The main way the US, UK, and the Netherlands historically became rich was through maritime trade. Maritime trade was basically only possible due to those countries' military expenditures on having strong navies. I know the media makes a big focus on US special forces and other things, but the US Navy is basically the most important and foundational part of all of the US military power. The US and Allies were always interested in maintaining freedom of navigation and trade at the seas.
Just take a look at how much money was lost due to trade shipping costs due to the Houthis in Yemen. Consider that today it's cheaper than ever to ship things, and even today, it was so terrible. Shipping by land is terrible. The only historically economically feasible way to do maritime trade has been with Navies to provide protection from pirates.
The problem is that in Canada we're willing to invest a little for a long time. But we're not willing to make big bets.
You can raise far more capital in the US than in Canada. So naturally large rewards come to those who are willing to make large bets.
Element AI.
It's not that the bets are not made, the winnings are captured by those that corrupt the existing system before it's even started, so tney go nowhere. This has been the status quo for so long everyone assumes it is what is happening with every new initiative.
It's not perfect but if you replace the system you're gonna find the same sorts or errors since it's impossible to accurately guess future value of uncertain engineering projects.
Who are you talking about? It’s childish
50% of VC is biotech, HistoSonics is on the front page of HN, and it was a PhD project turned into a huge company with deep, liquid capital markets. BBC doesn’t really write about that but the venture system that made HistoSonics was super sophisticated, full of very bright people willing to take huge risks, and while the inventor isn’t going to be a billionaire, she is still there inventing stuff, and she’s not going to be poor either.
Nobody is asking economists in the article any questions. How does R&D show up as something measurable? - thats really the meaning of financial we care about in this case, as opposed to economic or humanistic, where it’s pretty obvious that Canada, Russia, and the US, among other smaller countries like Israel and Finland, benefit from R&D more than financially, compared to say the UAE, which has spent relatively much more but yielded far less. A very attractive measure, to me, is the productivity of sectors that are basically indexes on a nation’s geography, like real estate, agriculture and minerals, versus innovations-driven sectors like healthcare, education and technology. In relative terms, given how great the weather is and how much oil there is, California and British Columbia (for EXAMPLE) swing way above their weight, no?
Instead of asking why Canada is doing this or that - Canada is doing quite well - we should be looking at South Korea.
The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-shall-not-be-named came along. SpaceX took the breakthroughs that existed in the US in things like control theory, which the same science establishment had failed to value appropriately.
It doesn't look like the science establishments of any country are actually successfully feeding their innovation machines, or have done so for decades. Switching a non functioning system off does at least allow it to be replaced by something that risks doing things when something comes back.
Of course many pure scientists will, legitimately, argue that innovation isn't the point in the first place, and that is a far more solid point, but real academic diversity has been so destroyed by the global consensus making peer review process that much of their progress has effectively stalled.