xo xo Gossip Girl
Thanks Tas – very interesting post on a topic I have very little prior knowledge or experience in. I think my biggest question is how they manage the innovators that they use to crowd-source for both idea generation and selection. I think the merits are easy to understand on the generation side and pose very little downside risk, but if the innovator base is open I would think that opening up the selection process to the masses before production phase would introduce the risk that someone steals the ideas first. Also, I’m curious at what point the pendulum switches from “internal innovators” to becoming paid employees, in which case this would operate much more like a traditional R&D function? Lastly, as you alluded, I’m very curious how this would be able to scale or whether this methodology is much better suited for a narrowly defined population.
xo xo GOSSIP GIRL
Gossip Girl Here. The impact of this issue is truly bone-chilling and not one I had ever considered – appreciate you playing devils advocate and pointing out one of the major concerns about the rapid expansion of additive manufacturing. You mention that the US should seek to find “more sustainable” ways of dealing with the issue than the example from Australia, but I actually think something of this severity may be necessary in order to really prevent this from happening. I think that detailed blueprints of a machine gun show clear intent to produce an illegal weapon, and given the severity of the potential impact this should be a highly punishable offense. I know that gun control issues are a very hot topic given the increase in mass shootings over the past few years, but the feasibility of creating weaponry outside of a regulated environment would remove yet another barrier to the wrong people accessing guns. I think this is a clear reason not to ever push the commercialization of 3D-printers, but should also require very stringent monitoring for companies that are adapting this technology.
Appreciate you tackling a topical and controversial topic and, like several commenters above have mentioned, the $1.3M number is shockingly low given the overall impact of the issue at hand. Like Billy the Fourth, I do question whether the crowd-sourcing efforts are more about PR than genuinely trying to get to the best answer: it’s easy to say you’re looking for the best solution by going broad, but not actually do anything about it. I like some of the ideas you mentioned about committing to a real research partner to further the research. You bring up an interesting question on other sports – to the extent that studies have been done for other sports, even if nature is very different, I think this should certainly be leveraged as best it can.
My last thought is that it’s important that the NFL gets valuable input from players in terms of rule changes (less so on technology of helmets). There are a lot of vocal voices in the news (i.e. quarterbacks vs. linebackers) and it’s important to make sure that all voices are being heard. I don’t think the NFL did a good job of collecting buy-in from its players, which is detrimental to the issue when players like Clay Matthews publicly bash the new rules and take away from the positive impact/goals they have.
Thank you for the wonderful insights, Allison. I agree that the main concern here is how to compete with other brands – maybe I’m behind the times on sneaker purchasing, but I wasn’t aware of this app/specialization existing for any brands. To me, I think that the first move would have a huge advantage and would be associated with this level of customization. The risk would be that true athletes would not go for an “all-purpose” shoe, and that these are the people who are most likely to pay up for this level of shoe. In terms of cannibalization, I actually don’t think this would be a concern – i see this as a marketing technique to win share over other brands and would re-enforce repeat buys on non-customized shoes.
Thank you for the insight on this topic. As someone who is very anxious flying, I’m torn on this one. On one hand, I think that we should be maximizing efforts to use machine learning to better understand data and how this can be used to improve the flight experience (both from a safety standpoint and in terms of minimizing turbulence). To your question on whether passengers would be comfortable with only one pilot, I think that (unlike cars) the risk is too great of a human catastrophie (i.e. a heartattack, seizure, etc.) Unlike with cars, there would not be someone else on the plane capable of landing and so it would only take one incident for this to cause major backlash.
Thanks for the interesting read TH14. I think the methodology that Benfica is using to analyze its young players is revolutionary to the sport, but I do question how this can be effectively translated into a feedback loop. As some of the commenters above mentioned, there is a gap between when you are measuring the characteristics of the players (in development camp) and their actual performance. I would think that player’s characteristics will change over time, and this could miss players who develop at a later time. I also worry that the technology will never be nimble enough to be used in a game setting, and therefore will not truly be reflective of game preparedness. I do however see how this could be one of a set of tools used to help analyze young talent.