----
I don't see or hear of any and want to know if this is just my bias or if there really is a shortage of resources in tech being allocated to solving the worlds most important problems. I'm sure I'm not the only engineer that's looking out for companies like this.
Ran into this previous Ask HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24168902) that asked a similar question. However, here I wanna focus on the better funded efforts (not side projects, philanthropy etc).
One example I've heard so far is Tesla. Any others?
The biggest impacts can often be made in areas that are most neglected and have high negative or positive outcomes. At the very least it will help you form a mental model of how to spend your time and the types of problems to focus on.
Loon uses standard 3GPP (LTE) protocols, so devices are available at low cost and even lower in used markets.
I don't work for Loon or Google, just interested in HAPS (High Altitude Pseudo Satellites) to provide low cost connectivity.
[2] https://medium.com/loon-for-all/loon-is-live-in-kenya-259d81...
Edit: fixed references
Starlink could also be used to provide backhaul to cell towers which work with standard 3GPP protocol and provide the same service as terrestrial networks.
HAPS Mobile has got a good video (< 5 min) on what it is and their vision [2]
[1] https://www.hapsmobile.com/en/
[2] https://youtu.be/zxWODb6Uqgs
Edit: I've no affiliation with HAPS Mobile, Softbank, Google :)
I also think that fast(er) internet without relying on governments could be interesting for many people in presumably developed countries like France and Germany and make living outside of large cities much more attractive to many.
Not all these companies will make it. There's a risk associated with working on these problems that is not always countered by the rapid revenue growth associated with a well-funded tech company. Having worked at a company that was briefly situated at Greentown, I will say there is an energy associated with working there. It made my optimistic that people are actually working hard on these problems, and we have a chance at solving some of them within my lifetime.
I'm sure things are a bit more difficult with the current pandemic considering their buildings' layouts (like most open workplaces), but I'd wholeheartedly recommend people interested to taking a serious look.
In particular, Otherlab companies: https://www.otherlab.com/
Most (not all) of the people (engineers, founders, leaders, etc) I talk to want to work on these problems. Google and Facebook are both driven by missions to do this. They get a lot of things right. They also get a lot of things wrong. So does Microsoft. But take a look at the mission and impact of both the Gates Foundation and the Zuckerberg-Chan foundation and I think you'll see that the founders care deeply about the impact that they are having. Execution on that impact is another matter.
The best companies focus on a specific well defined problem. When looking at companies, ask what problem they are trying to solve. Is this a mission that you can get excited about?
Next, is the company approaching this problem from a direction that resonates with you? Is there approach likely to work? What are the risks and potential side effects?
Facebook has done a lot of amazing and wonderful things. It's also created some problems. You have to balance that tension. All well-intentioned efforts come with risks regardless of whether those efforts originate from government, non-profit or business activities.
I'd encourage you not to slip to far into a cynical view of the world. Yes, there are lots of problems. Fantastic. Focus on what you can change and go find solutions.
> One example I've heard so far is Tesla. Any others?
Lol, Tesla is not an example. They are a carmaker. Nothing Tesla does will change the world for the better. In fact investing in automobiles in any form is counter-productive when we should be reverting post-war city design mistakes. The best thing for the world would be to live in walkable communities with inter-city trains taking care of long-distance travel.
Tesla is a great example of the flaw in your question: looking toward a highly-funded company out to change the world is an impossibility. Highly funded companies are expected to produce revenue growth. That’s it. There’s no such thing as a for-profit company out to solve world problems unless solving those problems involves increasing profit.
So, like I said, what you’re looking for is probably a non-profit, a government agency, or research institution.
And don’t expect to get highly competitive salary to do work that helps people.
Yup, this is exactly what I was hoping wasn't true: That it's impossible to be both well funded, high revenue growth AND do so while tackling a meaningful problem. ---
Don't want to make this thread about all the ways in which Tesla is a bad example (just first one that came to mind).
Interested in improving the state of the art in detecting cancer - paigeai is building automated pathology tools.
A somewhat USA specific one, but goodrx is helping folks afford medications.
Quite a few of those "issues" in your link get you way past traditional Tech company turf, but all will need software engineers! There are a lot of cool biotech companies out there who would need software engineers!
Is tech the right tool to attempt solving societal problems?
If Tesla's goal was to have an impact on climate change they should allow other car companies to purchase their batteries and motors to build from. Or actually build an economical car, sub $25k, no self-driving or fancy features, no performance mode, etc. Just a working, fully electric car that any working-class person could buy, globally. That would have much more impact than building luxury electric vehicles.
Renewable tech (ie solar, wind) is an excellent example of this phenomenon, where we are finally getting to the point where you don’t need to appeal to people’s morals/values to get their energy companies to use renewables - they’re now simply cheaper in a lot of regions! Because tech improved in the right direction, greed and economic efficiency have become much more aligned with reduced environmental impact.
So the way I like to think about problems is this: what technology, if it existed, would solve this problem even when people/societies act entirely in their own self-interest (given how many world economies typically function)?
Morality is a luxury few feel they can afford, so make the moral choice cheaper.
So, why doesn't Tesla build that cheaper, smaller, lower-range car? It's probably because the profits in it are much smaller, and they need profits to justify their insane valuation. Every quarterly report on TSLA is sliced apart by thousands of analysts, is it in their best interest to make less profit and do slightly more good by electrifying slightly more miles? What if they went bankrupt or lost on a bunch of funding due to this strategy, and then BEVs would be set back a decade?
I'd buy the modest car myself, yes, but I don't think that it's the most financially sound way to proceed...their strategy of starting at the high-end, low-volume side seems to have worked well, so that's what they're sticking with. FWIW, I think the Model 3 is already even on costs with the plurality of new vehicle purchases in America, which with options often range from 30-50k depending on the make.
No, but broad agreement about what people value and visible signs that people are willing to spend resources on that would.
Electric cars are sexy now and people will spend money on them.
If this conversation is about organisational/behavioral change, then Tesla did create inexpensive electric vehicles. The fact that those vehicles are being designed, manufactured, and sold by totally separate companies is an implementation detail -- An inescapable result of the fact that lower cost requires larger scale and greater expertise with larger scale.
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/cheapest-elect...
> To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence. Supreme excellence consists in achieving the continuation of our policy with other means -- Sun von Clauzwitz.
One simple example: new technology can drastically lower the barrier to do things which inevitably democratizes them. Then teams don't have to rely on specialists to accomplish that task and the overhead of internal politics/poor communication/etc goes down. I bet spreadsheets saved a number of otherwise dysfunctional companies when they were introduced by letting small teams do their own analysis and operate independently. Sure, in some sense you're just letting individual teams work around the broader dysfunction of an organization, but sometimes that's exactly what you need to get out of a company-wide stalemate.
For all that people don't like fancy cloud tools and microservices, they play the same role at tech organizations. Having a lot of trouble with teams not integrating their code well and not playing well with your deployment/ops/etc team? Give each team the tools to deploy and manage their own services and they'll figure something out.
Not an expert on this phenomenon, but I think mobile payments and banking in developing countries is playing a similar role. I'm sure there are other examples along the same lines being developed and tested as we speak—not necessarily by startups though.
Obviously that would take more work than just buying directly from Tesla, but if they built their manufacturing line to supply their own Tesla-invented tech then they should be able to sell it to other manufacturers, right?
That's not the right question you should be asking. The questions you should be asking are "Where can I contribute the most value?" and "How can I use that to improve society?"
Maybe tech isn't the be all end all, but it's often better to do things that you're good at.
They have and they did. [1] You have it backwards. The other car companies have chosen not to purchase batteries and motors from Tesla anymore.
Tesla wanted to be a spark. They thought, worst-case scenario: other car companies will come and dominate, and we'll be positioned as a supplier with the best technology. Well, that didn't happen.
So now we have a simple dilemma. Tesla needs $$$. $$$ represents choices, research, development, improvement, etc. (Did I mention that Tesla's constant investment in battery technology has been driving down the cost across the industry?) Let's say they want to shutter their car business and just supply batteries and drivetrains.
We'll put the cost of a battery pack at $10k. Like any supplier, when selling to other car companies, they have to add X% markup to cover their future goals, research, development, etc. Now, other car companies pay $15k for the battery pack, which leaves $10k left over for all the other parts of the car to reach break-even on that $25k economical car. Margins are already thin, that ain't gonna work.
Well, Tesla could just sell the battery packs at cost since they care so much, right? Just so happens Tesla raised $5B. $5B / $10k = 500k battery packs. Great! But there were 17 million vehicles sold in the U.S. alone last year... that's a drop in the bucket. Tesla would need $150B / yr just to sell enough batteries to other car companies at cost. That ain't gonna work.
So where do we end up? Well, Tesla can "supply" the battery pack to their self at $10k because, well, it's their battery pack. Thus bestowing a competitive advantage upon their company.
> Or actually build an economical car, sub $25k
That's the plan. Do you not see their steps towards accomplishing that goal? Tesla literally laid out their plan from the beginning: start at the upper end of the market to capture enough money to throw into R&D such that they can work their way down the curve into the more economical price range. Not sure how this isn't obvious from Tesla Roadster ($150k+), Model S ($75k+), Model X ($80k+), Model 3 ($35k+) ...
By the way, you don't get down to a $25k car unless the parts that go into that car cost less than $25k. Tesla has been working to drive those costs down since the inception of their company. Evidence being the many factories they're building and the working partnership they've maintained for R&D on batteries with Panasonic.
> no self-driving
Self-driving is an add-on. It's not included in the base price of a vehicle.
> no performance mode
Once again, another lineup. Not the base model.
> Just a working, fully electric car that any working-class person could buy, globally
Working-class person with a Model 3 checking in. Similarly the Model 3 price point put it firmly within the grasp of my parents who have subsisted on Toyota Camry's and Honda Accord's their whole lives. Their next car will be a Model 3.
> That would have much more impact than building luxury electric vehicles.
Yeah. Tesla agrees. They're getting there. I'm not sure what they've done in the past two decades hasn't proven that.
[1]: https://evannex.com/blogs/news/when-tesla-partnered-with-the...
Tesla makes luxury cars which is 5% of all car sales (Model 3 included, it starts at $38k). Tesla is 5th in market share for luxury cars in 2019 at 9.78% [0]. That means of all car sales in 2019, Tesla accounted for 0.5%. I'm not bashing Tesla, they make cool products (except that truck concept, that looks like ass), these are just the stats.
I understand their eventual goal is to have previous products help reduce cost for future ones but the impact on reducing CO2 levels by Tesla cars alone is probably not much at this point.
It would be like a new airplane manufacturer starts up and says they want to address the world's transition to sustainable energy and they are going to start with the Learjet/executive flyer market first. I wouldn't say that company is "tackling a major societal problem" I would say they're building a boutique business that as a by-product reduces CO2.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/287620/luxury-vehicles-u...
Part Un: 1) Create a low volume car, which would necessarily be expensive 2) Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price 3) Use that money to create an affordable, high volume car
Part Deux: 1) Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage 2) Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments 3) Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning 4) Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it
Tesla's utility-level batteries (MegaPack) make wind and solar projects more economically feasible since any excess wind can be stored instead of being sold at negative rates when its not being used. These batteries will allow the replacement of many coal-powered generator plants since those are typically used for peak times when we need more energy. They're responsible for pushing the electric car revolution forward (making it fashionable), which is forecasted to lead to less peak energy usage and a more balanced usage during non-peak hours (since people will be charging their cars at home after hours). In theory, this reduces the need to make upgrades to the US electricity distribution network and we should lose less energy transporting it. This also reduces the need for oil, and could prevent more wars in the middle east (since their major resource is less valuable)
It involves brine pools in salt plains. Water usage is the only real concern. Not to be ignored but it won't leave any superfund sites, cancer hotspots, turn rivers dead but colorful with tailings, or oil spills.
That's not necessarily true about the infrastructure. The estimate I saw said if all the gas cars were replaced with electric ones then the infrastructure would have to double or triple depending on how much off-grid equipment is adopted. I know my house would need an upgraded connection to handle a 50amp charger. I'd probably need a whole extra line and panel if we needed to charge 2 or three cars at once.
However, if a Lithium mine in South America opens, and it wrecks and pollutes the land, the same place that bears the costs (the pollution) also gains the benefits (the jobs/revenue from the Lithium). At the very least, it's more fair.
Steps in the right direction are all we can ever take.
Asteroid mining might be a bit of a solution to this resource extraction problem, but not really.
If you’re interested in playing a major part in one of the most ambitious missions of the past decade and want to work with individuals who use their talents for good, then you should check out Forward.
See our open roles here: https://goforward.com/eng, or reach out to me directly at marissa@goforward.com with your resume.
Check out this article written by our CEO, Adrian, about how we plan to rewire the healthcare system here: https://blog.goforward.com/dont-bail-out-healthcare-rewire-i...
Watch a video tour of one of our doctor's offices here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnJEsoGmh-8&feature=youtu.be
My general guess is that anything actually worthwhile will have little to no private funding behind it.
Global heating. Racism. Soil extinction. Fascism. Disenfranchisement. Inequality. Female disempowerment. etc.
I guess there is government cheese for global heating. Not sure how much useful work would be done outside of government-run and/or -funded laboratories.
And anything that could potentially start out as being at least notionally-well-intentioned will come around to being not that.
My general thinking at this point is I have to find or help to create a small, well-organized group of people who start a not-funded social movement that will oppose almost everything most philanthropists and investors and do-gooders actually care about.
https://puri.sm/about/manufacturing-and-sourcing/
Not sure if you consider them "well funded" though.
Desalination + desert greening + solar + farming. Awesome
I'm an embedded software engineer, and I work on a lot on the firmware running in the vehicles, as well as in all the various ground equipment we've developed to make our system easier to operate. I also touch a lot of "high level" python to build out developer tools and when interfacing to the company's broader software stacks. It's important for our system to be as automated as possible so that we can hire and train local flight operators to serve their communities with minimal engineering support. I think that's something really cool about Zipline. Our flight operators are the most awesome, dedicated employees, and they're in the trenches launching hundreds of flights per day through extreme rain, heat and cold. I want to say that something like 1/3 of flights are for medical emergencies, too.
I've been very happy working here, also. It's a really good group of people. Everyone's dedicated and self motivated to move quickly, without compromising family or work life balance. We try to keep communication within the company as flat and direct as possible, too. There's no corporate politics or egos to maneuver around. Our CEO's car is one of the crappier cars in the parking lot. For surprise medical reasons I had to take quite a bit of time off at a really quite terrible time in the schedule earlier this year, and my coworkers happily picked up the slack and sent me an embarrassing amount of very luxurious chocolate.
Since I joined, my team has grown from just me to about a dozen people, and all the growth has done is made us busier with all the cool projects we're taking on. We're generally always hiring across the company, and especially on the embedded engineering team. Since I've been around a while, I tend to focus on broad architectural work while helping out on whatever project is the most on fire, and try to give newer team members a chance to focus on projects that they can own long term.
https://flyzipline.com/careers/
This is what I've been working on improving this past week. If you sign an NDA, I can tell what relevance it has to 1980s rap music... https://youtu.be/FeSCEalMOL8?t=85
As a labor market participant, you can choose to work for places that have an organizational mission that strategically aligns with local, domestic, and international objectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_alignment ... "Schema.org: Mission, Project, Goal, Objective, Task" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12525141
As an investor, you can choose to invest in organizations that are making the sort of impact you're looking for: you can impact invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_investing
You mentioned "List of global issues"; which didn't yet have a link to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (the #GlobalGoals). I just added this to the linked article:
> As part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UN Millenium Development Goals (2000-2015) were superseded by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (2016-2030), which are also known as The Global Goals. There are associated Targets and Indicators for each Global Goal.
There are 17 Global Goals.
Sustainability reporting standards can align with the Sustainable Development Goals. For example, the GRI standards are now aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals
Investors, fund managers, and potential employees can identify companies which are making an impact by reviewing corporate sustainability and ESG reports.
From https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-develo... :
> SDG Target 12.6: "Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle"
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21302926 :
> > What are some of the corporate sustainability reporting standards?
> > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_reporting#Initi... :
> >> Organizations can improve their sustainability performance by measuring (EthicalQuote (CEQ)), monitoring and reporting on it, helping them have a positive impact on society, the economy, and a sustainable future. The key drivers for the quality of sustainability reports are the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI),[3] (ACCA) award schemes or rankings. The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines enable all organizations worldwide to assess their sustainability performance and disclose the results in a similar way to financial reporting.[4] The largest database of corporate sustainability reports can be found on the website of the United Nations Global Compact initiative.
> >The GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) Standards are now aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (#GlobalGoals). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative
> >> In 2017, 63 percent of the largest 100 companies (N100), and 75 percent of the Global Fortune 250 (G250) reported applying the GRI reporting framework.[3]
What are some good ways to search for companies who (1) do sustainability reports, (2) engage in strategic alignment in corporate planning sessions, (3) make sustainability a front-and-center issue in their company's internal and external communications?
What are some examples of companies who have a focus on sustainability and/or who have developed a nonprofit organization for philanthropic missions which are sometimes best accounted for as a distinct organization or a business unit (which can accept and offer receipts for donations as a non-profit)?
How can an employee drive change in a small or a large company? Identify opportunities to deliver value and goodwill. Read through the Global Goals, Targets, and Indicators; and get into the habit of writing down problems and solutions.
3 pillars of [Corporate] Sustainability: (Environment (Society (Economy))). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Three_dimension...
> We created a modern, simple, and affordable way for companies to include charitable giving in their suite of employee benefits.
> We give employees their own tax-deductible charitable giving fund, like an “HSA for Charity.” They can make contributions into their fund and, from their fund, support any of the 1.4M charities in the US, all on one tax receipt.
> Using the funds, we enable companies to operate gift matching programs that run on autopilot. Each donation to a charity from an employee is matched automatically by the company in our system.
> A company can set up a matching gift program and launch giving funds to employees in about 10 minutes of work.
> Are there similar services for Sustainability Reporting and accountability?
Footnote: I’m not this critical of the gig economy, just couldn’t resist the opportunity for some gallows humor. :)
Entertain them?
Why would you look to tech companies to do this?
Isn't this what charities do?
Even so - if you can solve these problems and make good money while doing so, why wouldn’t you want to?
