• Student

Activity Feed

On November 14, 2018, CambridgeCappuccino commented on Can We Live Forever? :

Very interesting! Thank you for your thoughtful commentary.

A few more questions come to mind: Will the broader scientific community be able to reach a consensus about the best methods and expected outcomes of 3D bioprinting? Who might own these organs; how does one issue IP around something like this? In the medium-term, could there be more of an appetite for ‘organic’ transplant offerings — for example, using CRISPR to modify pig organs?

There’s no doubt that we’ll have to grapple with the ethical implications of such innovations sooner rather than later. I wonder if we have the foresight to understand the long-term implications of such advances in science, and how we might live to regret the methods in which we first introduce such technologies. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer in pushing forward with such research! I have high hopes for what companies like Organovo can accomplish.

On November 14, 2018, CambridgeCappuccino commented on Applying Machine Learning for the Common Good – Is it Always Worthwhile? :

Great piece! Really appreciate your thoughtful comments.

I was aware that the cities were starting to appoint Chief Data Officers, but didn’t know the extent that machine learning already in action. It’s interesting to think about its limitations in public policy, especially within a system that already suffers severely from issues like racial bias. I echo your concerns about what inputs the algorithm may be trained on. Nevertheless, could it be true that any policy decision is rooted in some type of stance / political perspective / bias even if it ultimately serves a just purpose? It’s hard to understand where to draw the line on how we detect and interpret such biases, or even how we may effectively adjust for biases we already know exist.

On November 14, 2018, CambridgeCappuccino commented on Future X and Open Innovation at Nokia :

So interesting! I had never heard of the Bell Labs Prize — I look forward to exploring more.

For me, Nokia and IoT are a tough mix. Given their acquisition and subsequent sale of IoT startup Withings, I find it hard to believe that they’ll be able to find success in the space leveraging ‘out of the box’ ideas developed through the Bell Labs Prize. It seemed that Nokia really struggled to further commercialize Withing’s products which were basic (smart scale, watch etc.) but well regarded in the space. Perhaps, though, they have learnt their lesson and now have the capabilities in place to execute on IoT.

On November 14, 2018, CambridgeCappuccino commented on El Bulli: It Could Be More Than Foams and Olives :

Agree with LW above, a very interesting application of machine learning that I had not considered before! Thanks for a unique perspective.

As we discussed in our Aspiring Minds case, I wonder if the application of machine learning in this avenue could introduce flavor / combination biases into Adria’s dishes. In this vein, I completely agree with your statement that this seems to be more of an art form, than a science. As machine learning infiltrates the ‘creatives,’ I wonder how we might further innovate to protect authenticity and originality. Perhaps algorithms can be trained for that as well?

On November 14, 2018, CambridgeCappuccino commented on 3D Printing…we should ‘Just Do It’! :

Wonderfully written! Thanks for an extremely interesting post that shed light on a 3D printed product from the perspective of the consumer.

Similar to the trade-off between sustainable kits and performance, I have found myself wondering (perhaps naively) if 3D printed shoes could really lend themselves to the demands of a football game. I suspect that Nike, along with other athletic shoe giants, may have to spend time educating the mass market as to how 3D printing capabilities have progressed since the mainstream media first introduced the concept. When I think 3D printing, I still think rigid. Nevertheless, if they are good enough for CR7, they’re probably good enough for us all!

Great piece! I can share from experience that corporate accelerators often warrant heavy criticisms from internal stakeholders because of their long-term view (as you mentioned). We found, from our experience, that unless the accelerator participants were tightly aligned with a singular strategic objective (ex. medication adherence in healthcare), we could not drive any tactical short-term value from the interaction. So, in response to your question, I would pose that corporate accelerators can become a great short-term learning / innovation mechanism when a specific strategic objective has been identified, and all the participant companies play in that space.