[neura]

Even your description sounds like a startup, to me.

There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part.

I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.

[griffzhowl]

In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project?

The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in wartime. I was curious if there was some more specific rationale for the startup comparison

[infamouscow]

In a startup—especially one that is heavily funded, like a government—roadblocks that can be resolved by eliminating paperwork, cutting through bureaucracy, or simply by paying money, tend to disappear.

No serious person can argue this being plausible today. Sam Altman will drop 10B at a blink of an eye if it means unblocking a major problem for OpenAI.

The government spends 10x that all of the time without anything impressive to speak of since the moon landing.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Even your description sounds like a dtartup There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime

Huh? Decision was made by the president Roosevelt, advised by government agencies and even Albert einstein.

This is like top-down, command economy with elements of technocracy. There are no investors, no markets, etc.