a common idea that really annoys me:

that if something was developed with defense funding, then even if it has no obvious military application, it must have a non-obvious one

it’s sort of the same kind of mistake as “facebook is mind control”

here’s the thing:

to do anything new and interesting, you must have the freedom to fail. really interesting things don’t even map onto known categories of success or failure until they are digested by popular culture.

how do you get the resources to do interesting work, since interesting work can, by its very nature, never be effective along any existing metrics (including “delivering value” or “making money”)? you get resources from institutions so large that they are insulated from markets.

for instance, people sometimes do interesting work at google or facebook because those companies are almost entirely non-capitalized busywork infrastructures hanging off the side of an ad division that makes money — and even the ad divisions are insulated from the need to provide actual value (and can therefore do anything, so long as they are doing something) because ad targeting has no reliable measures of effectiveness.

the only thing that determines the income of an ad-driven tech company is the degree to which other businesses can be convinced that the ad-tech in question boosts sales — and since this can not be measured, nobody on either side of the transaction has any evidence at all.