尚硅谷 硅谷新聞

重點 (Top highlight)

There may be no richer Silicon Valley lore: It was 2004, Mark Zuckerberg’s summer of craziness. At 20, he and five buddies had rented a Palo Alto home, where they partied and wrote code for Facebook. One day, as Zuckerberg and the guys were strolling the neighborhood, he saw a familiar face. It was Sean Parker, the co-founder of Napster, the music sharing service. By coincidence, Parker, at loose ends and contemplating his next move, was staying at his girlfriend’s parents’ house, just up the street from the Facebook pad. The very next week, the big-thinking, smooth-talking Parker moved in with Zuckerberg and began introducing him around Silicon Valley. By the end of the summer, he had paved the way to Facebook’s first big investment — $500,000 from Peter Thiel.

?這里可能是沒有豐富的硅谷的傳說：那是2004年，瘋狂的馬克·扎克伯格的夏天。 在2 0時 ，他和五個伙伴租了一個Palo Alto房屋，在那里他們分手并為Facebook編寫代碼。 有一天，當扎克伯格和他們在附近漫步時，他看到了一張熟悉的面Kong。 音樂共享服務Napster的聯合創始人肖恩·帕克(Sean Parker)。 碰巧的是，帕克徒勞無功，正在考慮下一步行動，當時他正待在女友父母的房子里，就在Facebook板子的街上。 在接下來的一周，雄心勃勃，說話暢通的Parker隨扎克伯格(Zuckerberg)進駐，并開始向硅谷介紹他。 到夏天結束時，他已為Facebook的第一筆大筆投資鋪平了道路-彼得·泰爾(Peter Thiel)的50萬美元。

Thiel, who grew up in Silicon Valley and graduated from Stanford, had only recently landed a substantial payday himself. It went back to a providential lecture he delivered in 1998 at Stanford. One of the half dozen or so people present was a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant named Max Levchin — not a student, but a newcomer from Illinois who was there mostly to bask in the air conditioning and escape the sweltering summer heat. Afterward, Levchin approached Thiel. After a bit of chatting, Thiel asked why the young man was in town.

蒂爾(Thiel)在硅谷長大，從斯坦福大學畢業，直到最近才親自獲得豐厚的薪水。 它可以追溯到他于1998年在斯坦福大學發表的天文演講。 在場的大約五分之一中的一位是23歲的烏克蘭移民，名叫馬克斯·列夫琴(Max Levchin)-不是學生，而是來自伊利諾伊州的新移民，他在那里主要是為了曬太陽并逃脫酷暑。 隨后，列夫琴接近蒂爾。 聊了一會后，Thiel 問這個年輕人為什么在城里。

“Probably gonna start a company,” Levchin said.

列夫欽說：“可能會成立一家公司。”

“Oh, great,” Thiel replied, and suggested the two meet up the next day and talk more over smoothies.

“哦，太好了，” Thiel回答，并建議第二天見面，就冰沙談更多。

Perhaps no phenomenon is more studied, marveled, and desired in the world of high tech and science than the mystery of serendipity.

在高科技和科學世界中，也許沒有比偶然性的奧秘更能研究，驚嘆和期望的現象了。

In 2002, eBay paid $1.5 billion for the resulting startup — Paypal, making the two men and several partners rich. Over the subsequent years, Paypal vets including Thiel, Elon Musk, and Reid Hoffman went on to found YouTube, Tesla, SpaceX, LinkedIn, Yelp, and Palantir.

2002年，eBay以15億美元的價格收購了最終的初創公司Paypal，使這兩個男人和幾個合作伙伴變得富有。 在隨后的幾年中，包括Thiel，Elon Musk和Reid Hoffman在內的Paypal獸醫繼續創建YouTube，Tesla，SpaceX，LinkedIn，Yelp和Palantir。

Perhaps no phenomenon is more studied, marveled, and desired in the world of high tech and science than the mystery of serendipity. In seemingly every industry, CEOs pay millions in consulting, design, and architectural costs to multiply and optimize the number of chance encounters between their most creative employees — and hopefully profit from the blockbuster new products that might result. If only they could engineer the cubicles just so, or the indoor waterfall at the right angle, they might orchestrate providential encounters, or at least load the dice in their favor.

在高科技和科學世界中，也許沒有比偶然性的奧秘更能研究，驚嘆和期望的現象了。 在似乎每個行業中，CEO都會支付數百萬美元的咨詢，設計和建筑成本，以增加和優化其最具創造力的員工之間的機會，并希望從可能產生的巨大新產品中獲利。 如果只有他們能如此設計小隔間，或者以正確的角度設計室內瀑布，他們可能會精心安排天意相遇，或者至少對他們有利。

No place on the planet generates more such interest than Silicon Valley. For decades, cities everywhere have tried to replicate the Valley’s record of producing one trend-setting tech giant after another, but none has quite measured up. Like history’s other hubs of outsized accomplishment — Athens in 450 B.C., Hangzhou in the 12th century, and Florence in the 16th century — Silicon Valley has entrenched itself as the world’s centrifugal force for the biggest thing of its age, tech.

在這個星球上，沒有哪個地方比硅谷引起了更多這樣的興趣。 數十年來， 世界各地的城市都在試圖復制硅谷創造一個引領潮流的科技巨頭的記錄，但沒有一個能做到這一點。 就像歷史上其他成就卓越的樞紐一樣-公元前450年的雅典，12世紀的杭州和16世紀的佛羅倫薩-硅谷已將自己確立為世界上離心力，成為當時最大的技術力量。

But now Silicon Valley seems to be under a little-noticed threat. Amid Covid-19, the deep recession, and renewed antitrust pressure from Congress and regulators, the Valley faces a very different challenge — the disruption of its very essence, the serendipitous encounter. The culprit is a rush by many of the Valley’s leading companies to permanently lock in the coronavirus-led shift to remote work. In May, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told his employees they were no longer required to turn up in the office. Slack said more or less the same to its workers, and the trend was made official by industry colossus Zuckerberg, who announced that he expected up to half his employees would become permanently remote.

但是現在，硅谷似乎受到了鮮為人知的威脅。 在Covid-19危機，嚴重的衰退以及國會和監管機構不斷施加的反托拉斯壓力下，硅谷面臨著一個截然不同的挑戰-破壞其本質，偶然的遭遇。 罪魁禍首是硅谷許多領先公司急于永久鎖定冠狀病毒主導的向遠程工作的轉變。 五月份，Twitter首席執行官杰克·多爾西(Jack Dorsey)告訴他的員工，他們不再需要到辦公室里去。 Slack對其工人說或多或少都如此，這一趨勢是由行業巨official扎克伯格宣布的。扎克伯格宣布，他希望多達一半的員工將永久偏遠。

In Palo Alto, the median home now costs $3.2 million. In nearby Mountain View, it’s $1.7 million, and in San Francisco $1.8 million. In other words, the Valley has priced out almost anyone not making high six-figures, and even many of them.

在帕洛阿爾托(Palo Alto)，房屋中位價現在為320萬美元。 在附近的山景城，是170萬美元，在舊金山是180萬美元。 換句話說，硅谷已經將幾乎沒有制造出高六位數的任何人都包括在內，甚至超過了六位數。

In the years before the pandemic, talent in San Francisco and the Valley were already conflicted about whether to stay, increasingly exasperated by the cost of living. The concentration of highly motivated creators has produced enticing jobs, but also driven up prices. In Palo Alto, the median home now costs $3.2 million. In nearby Mountain View, it’s $1.7 million, and in San Francisco $1.8 million. In other words, the Valley has priced out almost anyone not making high six-figures, and even many of them. The temptation has been to flee elsewhere, and some tech talent had already been doing so.

在大流行之前的幾年里，舊金山和山谷的人才已經就是否應該留下來產生了沖突，生活成本使他們越來越惱火。 積極進取的創作者的聚集產生了誘人的工作，但同時也抬高了價格。 在帕洛阿爾托(Palo Alto)，房屋中位價現在為320萬美元。 在附近的山景城，是170萬美元，在舊金山是180萬美元。 換句話說，硅谷已經將幾乎沒有制造出高六位數的任何人都包括在內，甚至超過了六位數。 誘惑一直是逃到別處，而且一些技術人才已經這樣做了 。

But now, if engineers, designers, and venture capitalists are geographically disbanding, working via the cloud instead of walking Google’s halls, surfacing at Buck’s Restaurant, or the cafes on University Avenue, how will future serendipity happen?

但是現在，如果工程師，設計師和風險投資家在地域上解散，通過云工作，而不是走在Google的大廳，在Buck的餐廳或大學大道的咖啡館鋪面，那么未來的偶然性將如何發生？

To question the reality and role of serendipity to a Valleyite is to challenge feng shui in Hong Kong. Its mystic stature is both the Valley’s deepest-held belief and its drawing card. When Valleyites think of serendipity, they have in mind something unsought, found unexpectedly, and also proves to be highly lucrative.

質疑巧遇硅藻土的現實和作用，是對香港的風水提出挑戰。 它的神秘身材既是硅谷最深厚的信念，又是其吸引人的卡片。 當硅谷人想到偶然性時，他們會想到一些意想不到的東西，這些東西出乎意料地發現了，而且事實證明，它們是非常有利可圖的。

You might assert that, absent the partying Palo Alto summer, Facebook might have still grown into the form we know it, only in another place. You might also argue that serendipity is very rarely so dramatic, and more typically involves small instances of incremental providence as tech teams iterate. Perhaps, but Facebook did not bloom elsewhere. And while it’s true that serendipitous moments are usually prosaic and not Hollywood-worthy, you don’t need many lightning strikes when the outcomes are multibillion dollar tech companies. In every town, in every country in the world, childhood friends go into business together, but only rarely are those pals Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, growing up in the 1960s in the Silicon Valley town of Cupertino and going on to create Apple.

您可能會斷言，缺席夏日派對的帕洛阿爾托(Palo Alto)，Facebook可能仍會成長為我們所知道的形式，只是在另一個地方。 您可能還會辯稱，偶然性很少如此戲劇性，并且通常涉及隨著技術團隊不斷迭代而產生的小小的增量天意。 也許吧，但是Facebook沒有在其他地方開花。 固然偶然的時刻通常是平淡無奇的，而不是好萊塢值得的，但是當結果是價值數十億美元的科技公司時，您不需要許多雷擊。 在世界上每個國家的每個城鎮中，童年時代的朋友都一起做生意，但史蒂夫·喬布斯和史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克的好朋友很少見，他們于1960年代在硅谷的庫比蒂諾小鎮長大，后來創立了蘋果公司。

Tech serendipity is the means to an end in Silicon Valley. “You bring together a density of entrepreneurs and capital with a belief in crazy ideas and a readiness to fund them, and you manufacture serendipity at higher rates than if it were evenly distributed,” said Shaan Hathiramani, the CEO of Flockjay, a San Francisco education startup, who is among those wrestling with how to replicate the chance encounter.

科技的偶然性是終結硅谷的手段。 舊金山Flockjay首席執行官Shaan Hathiramani表示：“您聚集了密集的企業家和資本，并相信瘋狂的想法并愿意為它們提供資金，而且制造意外事件的速度要比平均分配情況要高。”教育初創公司，他是那些努力復制機會遭遇的人。

But in a future remote dispersion of workers that all but excludes the unexpected, face-to-face encounter, what will Silicon Valley lose? And really, was it already lost long ago?

但是，在將來工人的遠程分散工作中，幾乎排除了意外的面對面的相遇時，硅谷將損失什么？ 真的，它早就已經丟失了嗎？

If Silicon Valley has a father, it might be William Shockley, the paranoid co-inventor of the transistor. Shockley grew up in Palo Alto when it was a place of apricot orchards and a few thousand people, then went East for his doctorate and to work for Bell Labs. In the 1950s, after he, Walter Brattain, and John Bardeen sparked the information age revolution with their transistor, he wore out his welcome at Bell, and decided to go home. He took with him a dozen brilliant young engineers, and together they started the Valley’s first transistor-making firm. It didn’t turn out well for Shockley himself, because his best staff soon mutinied and left. But it did start the ball rolling for the Valley when some of his former employees went on to establish Intel. Already, serendipity was working.

如果硅谷有一個父親，那可能是晶體管的共同幻想家威廉·肖克利(William Shockley)。 肖克利在帕洛阿爾托(Palo Alto)長大，那兒是一個杏果園和幾千人的地方，然后到東方去攻讀博士學位，并在貝爾實驗室工作。 1950年代，在他，沃爾特·布拉頓(Walter Brattain)和約翰·巴丁(John Bardeen)用他們的晶體管引發了信息時代的革命之后，他在貝爾(Bell)表示了歡迎，并決定回家。 他帶了十二位杰出的年輕工程師，他們共同創立了硅谷的第一家晶體管制造公司。 對于肖克利本人來說，結果并不好，因為他最好的員工很快就被叛變并離開了。 但是，當他的一些前雇員繼續建立英特爾公司時，它的確為硅谷拉開了序幕。 偶然性已經起作用了。

By then, Palo Alto had become the beating heart of the Valley. A crucial action then rooted serendipity into the Valley’s firmament. In 1951, Fred Terman, Stanford’s dean of engineering, set aside hundreds of acres of land on university property as an industrial park for entrepreneurs. Inventors could lease space cheaply, locking in a relationship with the university and setting the stage for countless famous startups, including among the first tenants — Bill Hewlett and David Packard.

到那時，帕洛阿爾托已成為山谷的跳動心臟。 然后，關鍵行動將偶然性扎根于山谷的穹蒼之中。 1951年，斯坦福大學工程學院院長弗雷德·特曼(Fred Terman)在大學財產中預留了數百英畝土地，作為企業家的工業園區。 發明家可以廉價地租用空間，與大學建立聯系，并為無數著名初創公司(包括首批租戶Bill Hewlett和David Packard)搭建舞臺。

Dozens of startups and legacy companies are trying to solve the serendipity crisis. Among them are Gather, a Silicon Valley startup, and Hopin, a U.K. company, both of which see the answer in conference apps.

數十家初創公司和傳統公司正在嘗試解決偶然性危機。 其中有一家位于硅谷的初創公司Gather和一家英國公司Hopin，兩者在會議應用程序中都能找到答案。

Until Covid-19, Big Tech seemed to be pulling out all the stops to engineer more serendipity. In recent years, Google had spent an estimated $120 million on celebrity architects, designers, and builders to construct the Googleplex, its Mountain View headquarters, and another $1 billion for an adjoining office park. Facebook had laid out $300 million to add a new main building at its headquarters for 3,000 employees, outfitted with its own Redwood forest, a 3.6 acre rooftop garden, and multiple restaurants. Apple had spent about $5 billion for Apple Park, a circular, four-story building designed by Jobs for its 13,000 local employees. In all the cases, the idea was to create more and more chances for people to run into each other and start trading ideas.

在Covid-19之前，Big Tech似乎全力以赴，以制造出更多的機緣巧合。 近年來，Google估計花費了1.2億美元用于名人建筑師，設計師和建筑商，以建造Googleplex，Mountain View總部以及另外10億美元用于毗鄰的辦公園區。 Facebook斥資3億美元在其總部增添了一座新的主樓 ，可容納3,000名員工，并配備了自己的紅木森林，3.6英畝的屋頂花園和多家餐廳。 蘋果已經斥資約50億美元購買了蘋果園，這是一座由喬布斯為其13,000名本地員工設計的圓形四層建筑。 在所有情況下，其想法都是為人們創造越來越多的機會，讓他們互相碰碰并開始交易想法。

And yet Big Tech has seemed calm if not outright indifferent regarding the potential demise of the unscripted moment in this protracted period of remote work. A look at the last decade or so of Valley history may explain why: Over that time, the FAANG companies have largely stopped trying to invent the next big thing, at least in-house. Instead, they have shifted to milking their signature inventions — for Google, the search engine; for Facebook, its basic social platform; Microsoft’s operating system and Office software; and Apple’s suite of “i” products — while keeping a keen eye on the Valley’s garage inventors. When a startup produces something truly market-moving, Big Tech leaps into action, copying the breakthrough or attempting to buy the startup outright, such as Facebook’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google’s purchase of Fitbit and a suite of A.I. companies. Big Tech’s heft has allowed it to leverage away from a heavy reliance on serendipity.

然而，對于在這段漫長的遠程工作中未記錄的瞬間的潛在消亡，Big Tech似乎很平靜，甚至不是完全漠不關心。 回顧Valley歷史的過去十年左右，可以解釋原因：在那段時間里，FAANG公司基本上已經停止嘗試發明下一件大事，至少是在內部。 取而代之的是，他們轉向擠占他們的標志性發明-對于搜索引擎Google而言； 適用于Facebook的基本社交平臺； Microsoft的操作系統和Office軟件； 和蘋果的“ i”產品套件-同時密切關注硅谷的車庫發明家。 當一家初創公司產生真正的市場動向時，Big Tech就會采取行動，復制突破或嘗試直接收購該初創公司，例如Facebook收購WhatsApp和Instagram，以及Google收購Fitbit和一系列AI公司。 Big Tech的實力使其可以擺脫對偶然性的嚴重依賴。

If so, Big Tech’s presumed distance from the vagaries of chance could end up backfiring. The Valley’s scrappy startups, the small, currently nameless teams working long hours on an idea developed only on paper, do hope for a bit of kismet to stave off failure and, if the stars can possibly align, make them the next big thing. If the founders, engineers, and designers in such startups are laboring entirely or largely from their own homes, and miss their moment, doesn’t Big Tech potentially lose its next big growth machine?

如果是這樣的話，Big Tech假定的機會與多變的機會相距甚遠，最終可能會事與愿違。 硅谷草率的初創公司是目前尚無名字的小團隊，他們長期致力于僅在紙上提出的想法，他們確實希望有一點基斯邁特能夠避免失敗，并且如果明星們能夠團結一致，則使他們成為下一件大事。 如果此類初創公司的創始人，工程師和設計師全部或大部分在自己的家中工作，而錯過了自己的時光，那么Big Tech難道不會失去下一個大型增長機器嗎？

Entrepreneurs say that, at least currently, the answer is yes — the work-from-home mandate has probably put classic serendipity out of reach for Silicon Valley’s budding companies. “In the seed or angel stage of work, when you are trying to go from zero to one, you need rapid iteration,” said Hathiramani. “That is much harder to solve remotely.”

企業家們說，至少在目前，答案是肯定的-在家工作的要求可能使經典的偶然性對于硅谷的新興公司來說遙不可及。 Hathiramani說：“在種子或天使工作階段，當您嘗試從零變到一時，您需要快速迭代。” “這很難遠程解決。”

If serendipity’s explosive impact in creating the tech world as we know it has been biased in practice, a question is whether anyone should be vexed over its possible diminishment.

如果偶然性在創建我們所知道的技術世界時產生爆炸性影響，但實際上存在偏見，那么一個問題是，是否有人應該為它的衰落而煩惱。

Dozens of startups and legacy companies are trying to solve the serendipity crisis. Among them are Gather, a Silicon Valley startup, and Hopin, a U.K. company, both of which see the answer in conference apps: You watch online talks, then — just as you would at a physical conference — you go onto a “coffee break,” a virtual room where you can “bump into” just about anyone else at the event. You can also sign up to be paired with people with whom you might have similar interests. “It’s like a coffee break at TED,” said Paul Saffo, a futurist at Stanford.

數十家初創公司和傳統公司正在嘗試解決偶然性危機。 其中有一家位于硅谷的初創公司Gather和一家英國公司Hopin ，它們都在會議應用程序中看到了答案：您觀看在線講座，然后(就像在物理會議上一樣)進入“咖啡休息時間”。 ”的虛擬房間，您可以在活動中與其他所有人“碰頭”。 您還可以注冊與可能有相似興趣的人結對。 斯坦福大學的未來主義者保羅·薩福說：“這就像是在TED喝咖啡休息。”

Last week, Microsoft released a new feature for its Teams conferencing app called “Together Mode,” which uses A.I. to cut out the images of everyone in a call and assemble them in a virtual setting, such as a theater. The sensation is to remove some of the fake-togetherness of Zoom calls, which is a real advance for the typical work meeting. While all of these are valiant attempts, none introduce anything remotely organic. It’s the same digital intentionality, dressed in slightly fancier clothes: people sign up, know who is going to be present, and may or may not say or hear something surprising. In other words, if your objective is serendipity, all of it is utterly primitive.

上周，微軟為其團隊會議應用程序發布了一項名為“ Together Mode”的新功能，該功能使用AI裁剪通話中每個人的圖像并將其組裝在劇院等虛擬環境中。 感覺是要消除一些Zoom呼叫的偽造性，這對于典型的工作會議來說是真正的進步。 盡管所有這些都是英勇的嘗試，但都沒有引入任何遙不可及的東西。 這是同樣的數字意圖，穿著略顯時髦的衣服：人們報名參加，知道將要出席的人，可能會也可能不會說或聽到令人驚訝的消息。 換句話說，如果您的目標是偶然性，那么所有這些都是完全原始的。

Serendipity may be ripe for a reimagining anyway. That the most colorful and powerful examples of serendipity are a decade and a half or more old reveals a lot: in terms of Big Invention, Silicon Valley has been in a long slump. In papers and a seminal book, Robert Gordon, the economist at Northwestern University, argues that the United States’ golden century of invention ended about 1970, and that new products since then have been more or less meh. That is probably an excessively brutal assessment of U.S. invention, but Thiel himself famously groused, “We wanted flying cars. Instead we got 140 characters.” Silicon Valley is probably ripe for Serendipity 2.0 — something that looks different from today’s ecosystem.

小號 erendipity可能是成熟的reimagining反正。 關于偶然性的最豐富多彩，最有力的例子已經有十年半或更久了，這揭示了很多：就“大發明”而言，硅谷一直處于低迷狀態。 西北大學(Northwestern University)的經濟學家羅伯特·戈登(Robert Gordon)在論文和開創性著作中指出，美國的黃金發明世紀大約在1970年左右結束，從那時起，新產品或多或少地發展了。 這可能是對美國發明的過分殘酷的評估，但泰爾本人著名地抱怨說 ：“我們想要飛行汽車。 相反，我們有140個字符。” 硅谷的Serendipity 2.0可能已經成熟，這與當今的生態系統有所不同。

One welcome change would be to address Silicon Valley’s dearth of diversity. In recent months and years, as calls for pay equality and greater opportunities for women, Black founders, and other minority professionals have moved to the center of public discussion, it has become increasingly clear that serendipity in the world’s tech paradise has mostly benefited only a select, privileged few. From 2000 to 2018, just 2.3% of venture capital funding went to Black founding teams. Last year, only 3% went to female teams, according to Crunchbase. If you were not white and male, you largely watched the action from the sidelines.

一個可喜的變化是解決硅谷缺乏多樣性的問題。 在最近的幾個月和幾年中，隨著人們要求薪酬平等以及為女性，黑人創始人和其他少數族裔專業人士提供更多機會的呼吁已成為公眾討論的焦點，越來越清楚的是，世界科技天堂的偶然性僅使選擇，特權很少 。 從2000年到2018年， 只有2.3％的風險投資資金投向了Black創始團隊。 根據Crunchbase的數據 ，去年，只有3％的女子隊伍。 如果您不是白人和男性，則很大程度上是在觀望旁觀。

History’s creative hubs have been ephemeral — when Florence declined in the 16th century, it was not replaced by another concentration of artistic genius. The world simply went without.

歷史的創意中心曾經是短暫的-當佛羅倫薩在16世紀衰落時，它并沒有被藝術天才的另一個集中所取代。 世界簡直沒有了。

By its nature, serendipity means both being in the right place at the right time, and holding yourself open to an interaction. But entrepreneurs say that Silicon Valley tends to operate according to networks — people are generally receptive to chance encounters, if it’s with the people and demographics already in their personal and professional circles, but tend to be cooler toward those outside them. “So even in the best case, serendipitous interactions will heavily skew to match the tech population, which historically has been predominantly white/cis/male,” says Dan Pupius, the white co-founder of Range, a startup that makes software for engineering teams.

從本質上說，偶然性意味著既要在正確的時間在正確的地方，又要保持開放的態度進行互動。 但是企業家們說，硅谷傾向于按照網絡運作-人們通常會接受偶然的機會，如果他們已經與個人和專業圈子中的人們和人口統計融為一體，但往往對周圍的人比較冷淡。 “因此，即使在最佳情況下，偶然的互動也將嚴重偏向以匹配技術人群，而技術人群在歷史上主要是白人/順式/男性，” Rang的白人聯合創始人Dan Pupius說，Rang是一家生產工程軟件的初創公司。團隊。

Venture capitalist David Hall, who is Black and a partner at Revolution, says that, in the case of Black and women entrepreneurs, serendipity is much harder to come by. Since minority founders are generally not hanging out with future VCs at college, been invited to their parties, or otherwise been part of their circle, connecting with the right people rarely happens organically. “When these ‘moments’ do occur they are likely the result of a lot of research and networking to find the investors with the most amount of domain overlap with the founders’ startup and/or the least amount of exhibited bias,” Hall says. “So that when the chance meeting occurs, it sparks of serendipity but has always had to be the result of much more work on the part of the women or minority founder.”

風險資本家戴維·霍爾(David Hall)是布萊克(Black)的合伙人，曾是Revolution的合伙人，他說，就黑人和女性企業家而言，偶然性要難得多。 由于少數族裔創始人通常不會在大學里與未來的風投公司閑逛，被邀請參加他們的聚會或以其他方式加入他們的圈子，因此與合適的人聯系很少會自然而然地發生。 霍爾說：“當這些'時刻'發生時，它們很可能是大量研究和網絡的結果，以發現與創始人的創業公司重疊的領域最多的投資者和/或表現出最少的偏見的投資者，” “因此，當機會聚會發生時，它會產生偶然性，但始終必須是婦女或少數派創始人更多工作的結果。”

If serendipity’s explosive impact in creating the tech world as we know it has been biased in practice, a question is whether anyone should be vexed over its possible diminishment. A better, rejuvenated system would arguably be open to any winner.

如果偶然性在創建我們所知道的技術世界時產生爆炸性影響，但實際上存在偏見，那么一個問題是，是否有人應該為它的衰落而煩惱。 可以說，更好，更年輕的系統將對任何贏家開放。

No one knows exactly what such a new system might look like. And there is a risk if we don’t get it right. History’s creative hubs have been ephemeral — when Florence declined in the 16th century, it was not replaced by another concentration of artistic genius. The world simply went without. Granted, Florence didn’t have Zoom or the cloud, but so far both of those have fallen short in the present crisis. If a demise of serendipity leads to Silicon Valley’s decline, the world is unlikely to get an equal substitute. We may simply lose our engine of technological advancement.

沒有人確切知道這種新系統會是什么樣。 如果我們做錯了，就有風險。 歷史的創意中心曾經是短暫的-當佛羅倫薩在16世紀衰落時，它并沒有被藝術天才的另一個集中所取代。 世界簡直沒有了。 誠然，佛羅倫薩沒有Zoom或Cloud，但是到目前為止，這兩個指標在當前危機中均未實現。 如果巧合的消亡導致硅谷的衰落，世界不太可能獲得平等的替代品。 我們可能只是失去了技術進步的動力。

We’ve managed to answer other seemingly insurmountable challenges to serendipity. Lori McCay-Peet, a scholar of serendipity at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said that when public libraries began to go digital in the 1990s, people worried deeply. How would they serendipitously discover a book on a subject they never considered in an intentional environment like a computer? At first, their fears were borne out in uninspired library search software. But, after years of tinkering, McCay-Pett said, today’s digital libraries are deeply serendipitous. Traditionalists still head for the stacks, but younger generations argue that better search engines present them with dizzying numbers of unexpected books, articles, and papers.

我們已經設法應對了其他似乎無法克服的挑戰。 哈利法克斯(Halifax)達爾豪西大學(Dalhousie University)的巧合學者Lori McCay-Peet說，當1990年代公共圖書館開始數字化時，人們深感擔憂。 他們將如何偶然地發現一本關于計算機等故意環境中從未考慮過的主題的書？ 最初，他們的恐懼在沒有靈感的圖書館搜索軟件中得到了證明。 但是，麥凱-皮特說，經過多年的修補，如今的數字圖書館非常偶然。 傳統主義者仍然在爭奪市場，但是年輕一代認為，更好的搜索引擎會為他們提供令人眼花zz亂的意外書籍，文章和論文。

If the past is instructive, the pandemic will pass and many daily routines will return. Hordes of people will return to the office, but large numbers won’t. Some will pick up and move. At that point, today’s effort to digitalize serendipity will pick up more urgency. Video conferencing and other software will get better, and some companies will claim their product fosters the unscripted moment in truly innovative ways, blind to demographics. The question is whether that solution will include a continued place for Silicon Valley.

如果過去是有益的，那么大流行將過去，許多日常活動將返回。 成群的人將返回辦公室，但大量人不會。 一些會撿起并移動。 到那時，當今將意外事件數字化的努力將變得更加緊迫。 視頻會議和其他軟件將變得更好，并且一些公司將聲稱他們的產品以真正的創新方式培育了不受腳本約束的時刻，而這是人口統計所不具備的。 問題在于該解決方案是否將繼續保留硅谷。

翻譯自: https://marker.medium.com/what-silicon-valley-loses-if-everyone-goes-remote-761b398dc9fb

尚硅谷 硅谷新聞

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的尚硅谷 硅谷新闻_如果每个人都遥不可及，硅谷会损失什么的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。