Catching up on some of the discussion around adoption and its importance. Diversity of opinion is a good thing! I do think that it's useful to identify what our positions are wrt some axes. For instance, research and discovery are very different than bringing a product to market. On the pure research side you're not thinking of products but are investigating ideas, new perspectives, maybe the 'mathematical structure' of things, hoping to find some powerful ideas that bring deep simplicity, order, strength and/or reliability to various endeavors. Newton wasn't interested in bringing a product to market. I believe this kind of research is valuable in the artificial sciences and design space (~computers) as well. Interestingly Newton spent a bunch of his life chasing alchemy to no avail. Back then it wasn't clear to him or anyone else why this pursuit might be less fruitful than the others. Today this would be obvious to anyone but why it wasn't back then is an interesting question - the deeper education from Newton etc. is probably not whats in the books - the specific formulae etc. - but perhaps the idea that processes can be encoded as forumulae and that these can be discovered, must be consistent, etc - the very medium of science. On the other end of this axis is Henry Ford - definitely many new ideas but in the service of bringing the product. Where would we be with the Model T? Perhaps somewhere in the middle are the Wright brothers. Adoption of product is more of a concern of the product makers. Adoption may also turn out to be valuable to the ideas made by idea seekers (Newton's ideas are very widely adopted), but it's not usually the primary goal because truly new ideas are almost never going to 'fit' in the sea of prevalent ideas. Another axis is the time horizon - do you have one and how long is it? This is kind of different from the research/product axis but long time horizons tend to less popular be in the product space. Another axis is the expectation of failure and risk - invest in safer options likely to have mediocre success or wild options likely to fail but an occasional super hit? In the product space, some investors go with this approach - VCs invest in 10 outlandish ideas and hope for one success. In research, I don't know if such funding exists.. I'm not super familiar with the academic space but it seems most grants favor safe and incremental research. It seems that incremental vs radical is another axis..almost all products and ideas have things they change and things they don't. Anyway, I've rambled quite a bit and no sure where to take this further so I'm just going to leave this at that. Thanks for reading.

How Onex/Object Network fits on these axes, to kick this off: - research vs delivery: a bit of both, really, but end goal is definitely delivery - time: as long as it takes - I've been doing this for decades - risk: lately going for less of the safe "bandwagon jumping", more the riskier pure, ground-up approaches - incremental/radical: as above, going radical!

we can add the remaining ones, I didn't wanted to spam with too many all at once 😄

I'm doing one now! 😄