Thanks, glad you got something out of the comment.
You have a point that, ironically, the success of Licklider's vision may have changed the nature of collaboration for the worse in some ways. It's been a huge net positive, in that humanity as a whole is more productive, but there are things that have been lost.
(Or maybe another way to look at it is that Licklider/Engelbart's vision has been watered down, and you could solve these communication problems with better software design.)
Another example I recall is that Rob Pike said that Bell Labs was a wonderful environment because everyone had to physically sit in the same room, huddled around big shared computers. There is a natural exchange of ideas in that environment, which leads to big research breakthroughs. When Ethernet and personal workstations came around, suddenly you could sit at your desk and close the door and put your headphones on.
I personally noticed that irony at my own job. Often people would be talking more to people in a remote office than the person sitting next to them. And sometimes people would chat electronically with someone in their own office -- e.g. if they didn't want to take off your headphones or disturb other officemates!
I also wonder what a new model for funding basic research looks like. It seems like YCombinator would be a logical entity to fund such research, but as far as I can tell, it was a failed experiment.
And I think there is some danger in longing for the "golden age". I was reminded in reading the "Dream Machine" that a lot of it was driven by fear of the Soviets (Sputnik, etc.). And I also wonder if what made it work back then is no longer present, for better or worse.
The fact that we are having this conversation across time and space shows the power of Lick's "Intergalactic Computer Network". We have reasons to be optimistic.
On the other hand, on top of the computer hardware/software communication layers where this conversation takes place, there is a profound layer that we seem to take for granted and not consciously aware of (like fish in the water), i.e., written language composed and consumed by real human being (English in this case). To communicate effectively with this distributed (non-local in space) and asynchronous (non-local in time) layer, we need more contexts other than the words themselves. In Rob Pike's Bell Labs and Alan Kay's bean-bag-chaired PARC, local synchronous face-to-face communication would be much more effective because the audience were from the same background and shared the same context.
Let's take a look at the contexts of Bret Victor's blog post "Some excerpts from recent Alan Kay emails". These are excerpts of private written communication (emails) between Alan Kay and Bret Victor. We could imagine what Alan had in mind when he wrote those emails, or what Bret had in mind when he read them, further more, why Bret made those excerpts and posted them on his blog. However, since we were neither Bret nor Alan, we can only read them within the constraint of our own contexts. We can only guess what message Bret wanted to send with his blog and we are not even sure we (HN community) are his intended audience.
I am sure there are some YC funders reading this and the fact that we don't see any of them making a statement here shows that they are also under the constraint of their contexts. So I guess the challenges and solutions to funding of research lie upon these contexts as well.
You have a point that, ironically, the success of Licklider's vision may have changed the nature of collaboration for the worse in some ways. It's been a huge net positive, in that humanity as a whole is more productive, but there are things that have been lost.
(Or maybe another way to look at it is that Licklider/Engelbart's vision has been watered down, and you could solve these communication problems with better software design.)
Another example I recall is that Rob Pike said that Bell Labs was a wonderful environment because everyone had to physically sit in the same room, huddled around big shared computers. There is a natural exchange of ideas in that environment, which leads to big research breakthroughs. When Ethernet and personal workstations came around, suddenly you could sit at your desk and close the door and put your headphones on.
I personally noticed that irony at my own job. Often people would be talking more to people in a remote office than the person sitting next to them. And sometimes people would chat electronically with someone in their own office -- e.g. if they didn't want to take off your headphones or disturb other officemates!
I also wonder what a new model for funding basic research looks like. It seems like YCombinator would be a logical entity to fund such research, but as far as I can tell, it was a failed experiment.
And I think there is some danger in longing for the "golden age". I was reminded in reading the "Dream Machine" that a lot of it was driven by fear of the Soviets (Sputnik, etc.). And I also wonder if what made it work back then is no longer present, for better or worse.