[ten_fingers]

No, I never claimed that academic research and Ph.D.s have high average value.

The "value" of these two in nearly all cases is low. But, the value in particular cases is astoundingly high, totally blows away nearly everything else. What is crucial, then, as I explained very clearly, is EVALUATING the research. Then what the "value" is in most cases is irrelevant. Instead, what is relevant and crucial is the value after good results from a careful evaluation.

I didn't suggest investing in research and only suggested evaluating research that has already been done.

The US DoD has a fantastic track record both in evaluating projects to do research and in evaluating research already done.

The US research universities are also good at evaluating projects to do research and also research already done. Believe me, in technical fields, the US research community is quite good at evaluating both research proposals and completed research.

The information technology part of Silicon Valley won't even attempt to evaluate research even that is already done.

Does Silicon Valley get a lot of project proposals with such research? Likely not. But, as PG's essay explained, so far Silicon Valley nearly never gets project proposals for projects that are "big wins" and that SV can tell with good accuracy are "big wins" early on.

So, since, as in PG's essay, SV is struggling, especially in project evaluation and refuses to evaluate research, I mentioned, as in my Step 2, that research can yield powerful solutions to important problems from my Step 1 and that the US DoD does well in evaluating research. So do many other parts of our economy, e.g., essentially all of aerospace and huge fractions of all the parts of our economy involved with challenging engineering, and in these cases the evaluations are for high financial ROI.

In simplest terms, the ROI averaged across Sand Hill Road and Winter Street sucks; as PG's essay explained early project evaluations are shot in the dark; research can provide powerful solutions for important problems; research really can be evaluated with good accuracy; but SV refuses to evaluate research. As PG's essay explained, to get SV's returns up takes only a tiny number of "big wins"; well, the US DoD has done well evaluating "big wins" with high accuracy for over 70 years. So, I made a contribution, but I got attacked with heavy down voting. There are people on HN with a lot of power who don't want to hear about different ways to operate that promise to solve the problems they are struggling with. Piss poor.

[pbreit]

You're not making any sense whatsoever and your points are far from clear.

For starters, as an asset class, sand hill returns are probably as high as it gets so "sucks" is definitely the wrong description.

The DoD comparisons are just weird.

[ten_fingers]

You are not reading and are just angry for no good reason.

And what you are saying is total nonsense.

For the venture capital asset class, average returns over the past 10 years have been poor, including on Sand Hill Road. For the returns, there are many good sources; one of these I mentioned here is an old post of Mark Suster.

Some of Suster's data shows that in the last ten years roughly half of venture partners are no longer.

Common statements are that limited partners are disappointed in the returns and that many are stopping investing in venture funds.

A few venture funds have done well and have been able to raise funds recently. The total number of venture funds able to raise a round easily now may be under 20.

For information technology venture returns, "sucks" is a fully appropriate word. But if you are a venture partner, then you and your LPs know these facts of life very well already. Also there is enough data so that most entrepreneurs know the truth, also.

The DoD evidence is rock solid and right on target: If you suppress your anger and actually read and pay attention, as I have now explained in this thread in overwhelming clarity at the level of about the fourth grade over and over and over, my point is that the DoD shows that research can yield powerful solutions to practical problems. Apparently this very simple, rock solid, overwhelmingly well supported point is just too difficult for you to understand.

To hell with this HN user ID. Mods: Vote it down to zero. Your site and your mod work SUCK. To hell with you. Use your HELL BAN tricks, etc.

Your down voting mods are chicken sh!ts who won't engage in rational discussion but just sit back, silently, and attack carefully written, helpful posts with down voting. HN is arrogant and just SUCKS.

Hell, just go ahead and delete the UID.

Users be warned: HN is run by nasty people.

[pbreit]

You're calling _me_ angry?