262ventures.com

There are tons of examples of biomimetic work: replication of the stickiness of gecko feet, the anti-reflective properties of moth eyes, and the hydrophobicity of lotus leaves (you can find tons of work that my PhD advisor Bob Cohen worked on here). However for the most part these are designed surfaces which provide a static or passive effect.

There seems to have been a lot of recent interest in self-healing materials. These are materials that repair themselves dynamically in a response to mechanical fatigue. For example you can have a polymeric material which is embedded with microcapsules of a monomer and microcapsules of a cross-linking agent (think of a 2-part epoxy resin). When a micro fracture or craze runs through the material and through the microcapsules, the microcapsules break, the monomers and cross-linking agents mix, fill in the cracks, and cross-link to provide mechanical rigidity. This allows a structural component to continue to operate with relatively little loss in performance. Same as new!

But not really. There is a loss, albeit a small one, which can lead to further failure if the part is not replaced. The self-healing material acts as a safety feature but a sensor will be required to determine if the self-healing feature has been activated.  Once the polymerization reaction takes place, you’ve essentially used up the self-healing property of the material and a replacement is needed.

As self-healing materials make it to the mainstream (which undoubtedly they will as an important advance in the field of structural materials), the market for these fatigue sensors will correspondingly increase. I can imagine many ways in which you might be able to measure this fatigue “non-invasively:” electrical conductivity or thermally.

You can find more information about self-healing materials research at the University of Illinois’ website.

The Predictably Irrational blog brought up a revealing case study regarding organ donor rates across a range of European countries.  Ariely asserts that the discrepancy in organ donors (4.3% for Denmark vs. 85.9% for Sweden) originates from the way the forms are set up; Sweden having an opt-out choice and Denmark having a opt-in choice.  He continues to discuss the notion that indecision often arises when we are forced to make choices that are frightening.  In this case the frightening choice is what to do with our material remains once we pass away.  As we are pushed to consider our own mortality we seize up and select the default choice (i.e. leave the check box unchecked).

How many other scenarios can this be applied to?  Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, essentially claims that religion is a default option and that we live in a world where no one wants to check the box.  In this situation, again there are quintessential dilemmas regarding life, death, our role in this universe and our purpose for existence, to which we wish to avert our eyes.  Though the fiery rhetoric or the synthesis of the book may not be agreeable to everyone (from the Amazon comments it seems to raise a ruckus with logicists, anthropologists, scientists, atheists, theologists, everyone), in conjunction with Ariely’s hypothesis, we really have to wonder why there are so few atheists out there.

OK, religion is probably a tough one to argue.  But how a grayer area, where we aren’t talking about 95-5 splits but something more akin to 65-35? What about doping in sports?  Are there really, as Jose Canseco said, 50% or some inordinate number of steroid users in the MLB?  Having heard testimonies of current and former users, albeit only a select few, it seems that the choice to do performance enhancing drugs is a difficult one.  On one hand, you want to stay in the league, make more money, or generally attain success.  On the other, you could get busted, suffer health consequences, or be libeled a cheater by people you care about.  We’re not talking life/death decisions here, but undoubtedly this would be a tough decision to make.

The default decision here is to not use performance enhancing drugs right?  Do we see fewer users of performance enhancing drugs than expected?  And why is the onus on the athletes to prove their innocence even before they are labeled guilty?  Obviously there are many more effects at play in this environment (the current PED witchhunt in MLB, BALCO scandal, etc.) but overall it seems that we are paralyzed by indecision when it comes to difficult choices.  Shouldn’t we assume innocence and test for guilt?

We don’t particularly enjoy delving into politics here at 26.2. But really this will wind up being a post more about the Long Tail phenomenon. I am spurred to action by a unique intersection of events which include waking up to NPR’s discussion of last night’s Democratic primaries and an interview of Arianna Huffington on MobLogic. In the interview of Ms. Huffington, done by the excellent Lindsay Campbell (Stanford alum!), they discuss the “lunatic fringe,” or if you will, the political commentators who sit squarely on the long tail. The low economic costs of production and media dissemination, brought on by the internet, have allowed anyone with any opinion to place it in the public sphere to be consumed. Yes it’s out there, but it’s still damn hard to get noticed unless you have something outrageous to say. Think of all the press Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been receiving and been using, despite my disagreements with his equivocations, to great effect for his own pulpit. Or think of all the “click” grubbers who make stuff up about all three candidates.

In current media, differentiation is key. For large mainstream broadcasters, they differentiate themselves from others through the immense size and scale of their existing distribution channels. For smaller broadcasters (bloggers, the fringe) to prosper or to get off of the long tail, they have to figure out a way to turn up the volume. And unfortunately, without possessing existing influence, that means taking a hard stance, being outrageously sensational, and appealing to the primordial herd nature which exist in us all. All this comes at the expense of rational thought. Regardless, the noise gets heard.

MA just submitted an excellent post regarding dual class structures for companies entering the public market.  He has done a complete 180 on his original opposition to dual class share structures.  Let’s keep in mind that MA, a serial _successful_ entrepreneur with two home runs (Netscape, at least) and working on a third.  His insight is useful for all us entrepreneurs who happen to be lucky enough (<1% or so of us) to have the problem of taking our companies public.

As I was reading through his persuasive series of arguments for why companies with dual class shares may be aligned with long term value creation I began to think about how this could be used as a screen for potentially undervalued stocks.  This should be done, although he also brought up counter examples of net value destroying entrenched management/’Arrested Development’ style families using a public company as their personal piggy bank.

All in all, it seems that dual class shares have value to management and as long as the right incentives are in place, there should be enough gummi bears to go around for everyone.