The blue LED was supposed to be impossible—until a young engineer proposed a moonshot idea.

  • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4318·
    9 months ago

    It’s a capitalist company that funded him to go to Florida and bought him the machine to do his work.

    Where do you think he would get the 3 million the company gave him? It’s the company that spent that money to bet on innovation and they got a return on investment

    Capitalism never chooses the best path, but neither does any other system. We haven’t invented a perfect system, and it’s probably impossible. Sounds like a strange critique since we’ll never reach perfection

    • rbits@lemm.eeEnglish
      194·
      9 months ago

      And then capitalism that made the company repeatedly ask for him to stop researching it.

      • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
        154·
        9 months ago

        It’s the opinion of one person at the company. Under socialism there are also people who decide which research deserves funding.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.worldEnglish
      163·
      9 months ago

      Where do you think he would get the 3 million the company gave him?

      As the story describes, it was the founder who was acting emotionally that funded him. It was no different than a noble patronage of someone like DaVinci in medieval times. When the capitalist son in law took over, he was cut off. It was only Japanese culture from Japan’s pre-capitalist era that saved his job.

      • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        The founder was acting in the company’s interest, that’s why you fund research.

        He was actually not cut off either, he wasn’t fired when he continued his research despite being told not to. He still received a salary and was able to use the equipment purchased with company funds

    • nintendiator@feddit.clEnglish
      153·
      9 months ago

      Capitalism never chooses the best path, but neither does any other system. We haven’t invented a perfect system, and it’s probably impossible. Sounds like a strange critique since we’ll never reach perfection

      Just because nothing is perfect doesn’t mean we can’t call out stuff for not being it. Sounds like a strange critique since we’re supposed to improve on things.

      • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        Yes, but in any system some guy will decide which research is important. And that guy can’t possibly make correct decisions every time.

        I don’t see a way to improve on it

        • nintendiator@feddit.clEnglish
          31·
          9 months ago

          And that guy can’t possibly make correct decisions every time.

          Doesn’t matter. What matters is that they make correct decisions oftener than before.

          And the way to improve on it is clear: do more of that, with peer review.

          Come on this is not news, this is how progress has worked in the last [checks smudgy writing] 4600 years.

          • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            Then invest in a company that is structured that way, there’s no actual constraint on how a company is organized in capitalism

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      61·
      9 months ago

      You’re right that nothing is perfect. How does that make critique invalid though?

      Capitalism prioritizes profit. That’s it. We can imagine systems that prioritize any number of things; public welfare, innovation, creativity, equality, etc. Nothing will be perfect, but I’d say any goal is better than the selfish goal of profit seeking. Do you disagree?

    • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
      54·
      9 months ago

      Yeah where he went to a university not a capitalist company to learn. Then persisted in his research despite the capitalist company wanting to shut him down for not being profitable, then that company specifically and consciously screwed him over and didn’t reward him for it. Then tries to screw him over once again when he got a different job because of it.

      • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
        56·
        9 months ago

        Who funded him to go? It’s not like he paid for the trip out of his pocket

        The company could have also just fired him for not listening to orders. But I agree that they didn’t compensate him enough

        • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
          82·
          9 months ago

          The CEO of the time who actively went against the conventional wisdom of capitalism to fund a person he had know for decades and personally knew how capable he was.

          Then as soon as that CEO left the personal connection was gone and typical capitalist mentality took over and tried to shut it down

          Just like almost every big discovery this happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

          • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            9 months ago

            That could happen in socialism, where a government grant runs out and research is no longer funded because the person in charge of funding science changes.

            • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              9 months ago

              Socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff” it’s better thought of as when companies become democratised, so while it could still happen you have more chance to appeal to average people rather then purely answering to the CEO chasing profit margins.