In this terrible post, TechCrunch panders to the worst kind of start-up exec, the lying and failing kind. Nothing in their piece is good advice, and no one should look to these bozos for business tips.
Here is a nice excerpt:
Lying is a requisite and daily part of being a founder, the grease that keeps the startup flywheel running. No one likes to put it that way of course. Instead, we use phrases like “hustling” and “fake it until you make it” to make the idea of lying more palatable. “Information control” is among the most important skills a founder has traditionally needed for success, and these euphemisms change nothing of the daily behavior.
This is a crock. Having run a few startups, and having had a number of good exits, what I think you ought to do is operate to a plan!
If you find yourself in a place where your next round of funding is doubtful, it is most likely due to you failing to achieve the things you set out to in the first place, or no one wants what you are building. If you are failing to hit your targets, chances are you shouldn't be trusted with another round.
You know how venture rounds are termed A, B, C... etc? Investors expect you to hit the goals you set out in an A round, if you do it is very likely you'll get a B round of funding completed. If you miss all your objectives, well I suppose you can read this shit from TechCrunch. Read the rest
Basic science — the kind of research done for curiosity's sake, in order to better understand how parts of our world work — is the foundation of applied science — research that's aimed at developing a product, or tool, or achieving a goal. In the United States, the federal government is, by far, the number one funding source for basic research. So what happens to that investment in our future when things like the Sequester come along? Obviously, funding goes down. But the details are what's important here. Tom Levenson explains the short-term and long-term impacts. Read the rest
This hair-washing robot, introduced by Panasonic at a public demonstration in Tokyo last week, is actually a pretty practical idea. Washing your hair involves a decent amount of small motor coordination and finger dexterity, things that people often lose when they have a spinal injury or other kinds of nerve damage. A hair-washing robot could offer those people a bit more independence when it comes to their daily routines. That's a good thing.
But the real reason I'm posting this here is to show you how easy it is to take research that is objectively beneficial, and make it sound deeply silly and frivolous. All you have to do is show that picture (which is a little funny looking already, right?) and frame the story from the perspective of privilege—the perspective of people who have no problems controlling the nerves in their hands and forget that not everybody shares that skill.
Why would anybody need a robot to wash their hair? Oh, those crazy Japanese and their robots! They should put that money into something really useful. Amiright?
The next time a politician or pundit tells you about "wacky" scientific research that isn't worth funding, remember the hair washing robot, and think about whether the research is really as silly as you're being lead to believe.
Image:REUTERS/Kim Kyung Hoon Read the rest