Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startup Ideas

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 470 posts

Re: Startup Ideas

#391

Post by dreamcompiler »

sjg007 wrote: post #370
jabretti wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me more like they're just trying to build firefighting drones. It's not clear to me that they have any actual insight into how said drones might help, or how firefighting is done at the moment.

Those big super tankers operate at like $1m a day.. drones seem like they would be mosquitos in comparison. Maybe useful for spotting fires but I think satellite are the best plus traditional look outs. AI for sat images to spot wildfires is probably already done. It could track storms (lightning etc..). A bigger issue for wildfires is removing fuel sources which nobody does. A wet winter and spring fuels fire season…

Airborne drones can't carry enough water to be useful for extinguishment, but land-based drones could, and a swarm of mini-bulldozers to clear a fireline would be even better. Getting them to work reliably in rough terrain with lots of vegetation would be a big challenge though.

Re: Startup Ideas

#392

Post by dreamcompiler »

schoen wrote: post #135
yongjik wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't save the house if everything around is afire, but pictures like the burnt-down HP historical archive building[1] look like it could have been saved with a sprinkler wall. (For god's sake, the trees next to it are perfectly OK.) [1] http://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/7559762-181/hewlett-pa... (see picture 3)

Indeed, some people in the recent fires were able to save their homes with a garden hose (!) depending on the intensity of the fire in their area, particularly when the fire was spread by flying embers. That's not unusual in wildfires, though only some fraction of buildings can be saved this way.

Embers are a big problem, and another one is vegetation near your house. If you have a big dry bush just outside your patio door and it starts to burn, the infrared coming off it can go right through the glass and catch the inside of the house on fire before the outside starts to burn. This is why we preach defensible space (no vegetation within 30-50 feet of the structure).

Re: Startup Ideas

#393

Post by dreamcompiler »

blizkreeg wrote: post #117
jabretti wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is naive. A bushfire is huge, hot, and fast-moving, consuming entire trees in seconds. Your mains-pressure water sprinkler will not deter an onrushing wall of flame in the least... and worse, an automated system would take water away from where it's needed.

Perhaps. But does it have to be water? How do you know something won't work until you try it? Even with all the fire retardant sprayed onto massive wildfires from the sky, we're unable to stop them. Why wouldn't a different approach work? If you read about the Napa fires, some neighborhoods in Santa Rosa were entirely burned to the ground not because of a wall of gushing fire, but because some embers from further awa…

For low, slow fires like grass fires, it does not have to be water. Watery foam with bubbles of CO2 or another fire-inert gas can work well for smothering the fire. But the equipment to make foam properly is expensive and finicky and not all fire departments have it. And foam won't help much as a heat sink which is where water really shines. Heat sinks are what you need for big fires. Lots and lots of water.

Forest fires are never put out with water--you just can't get enough water where it's needed. Instead, you use small amounts of air-dropped water and fire breaks to steer the fire where you want it to go and let it run out of fuel.

Re: Startup Ideas

#394

Post by dreamcompiler »

flashman wrote: post #281
blizkreeg wrote: post #75

I've thought about the firefighting idea as well, especially after the recent Sonoma and Napa fire. Sprinkler systems for indoor fires are not that uncommon now. Why aren't there sprinkler/fire retardant systems for the perimeter/external part of a house? In a wildfire, I can't imagine a better way to fight the fire from spreading through a neighborhood than a system that auto-deploys when it senses smoke on the peri…

> Why aren't there sprinkler/fire retardant systems for the perimeter/external part of a house? There are. Google "external bushfire sprinkler systems" and look at anything from a .com.au domain. These systems are as much a startup as HVAC (i.e. not really), but they still rely on software control, because owners need reassurance that the sprinklers will activate automatically even if they have already evacuated. Det…

It's complicated too. For reliability, you need an independent cache of water that can last X hours (like a swimming pool), and an independent energy source to pump it.

Re: Startup Ideas

#395

Post by dreamcompiler »

louprado wrote: post #182
blizkreeg wrote: post #75

I've thought about the firefighting idea as well, especially after the recent Sonoma and Napa fire. Sprinkler systems for indoor fires are not that uncommon now. Why aren't there sprinkler/fire retardant systems for the perimeter/external part of a house? In a wildfire, I can't imagine a better way to fight the fire from spreading through a neighborhood than a system that auto-deploys when it senses smoke on the peri…

The city of Oakland has not only has a wildfire problem, but an arsonist problem. This summer a construction site with a 7-story structure (196 new apartments) was burned to the ground in just a few hours allegedly by one person. I didn't think that was possible in 2017. Is the issue with fire-retardant wood/framing materials that it is too expensive, toxic, or doesn't help once a certain temperature is reached ?

Under-construction buildings are very flammable. They're just pure fuel. No drywall, concrete or marble to slow down the fire.

Re: Startup Ideas

#396

Post by yorwba »

groby_b wrote: post #257
mynegation wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the way of consuming that data. I agree it may be counter-productive to feed more data to humans, who are able to hold on only to 7-9 object in immediate memory at a time, and driven by subconscious reflexes hardwired into us by billions of evolution. AI is not going to "think" like humans. It is not going to be better or worse, just "different". And all experience so far show that the more data the better…

And yet, anybody who actually works in machine learning has repeatedly said "figure out what problem you're solving first, then determine what data you might need - don't just throw a classifier at a data garbage heap" And the experience doesn't show more data is better, it shows that an excess of features leads to overfitting.

Sure, having more features gives a model more opportunities to overfit. But having more data points has the opposite effect, since they reflect the underlying distribution better and therefore provide a better estimate of actual model performance.

Re: Startup Ideas

#397

Post by imhoguy »

kromem wrote: post #168
kcorbitt wrote: post #2

Hey HN! I'm a software developer at YC and the author of this post. This post is actually a bit of an experiment. We're trying to find better ways to get prospective startup founders (which includes many of us in the HN community) in contact with problems that really ought to be solved. We have lots of different ideas for ways to do that, but a list of ideas seemed like an easy one to try out first. Please let me kno…

Kyle, I applaud the concept of sharing ideas for entrepreneurs to tackle. However, this list of ideas is dangerously bad, with nearly all of them suffering from either monetization challenges or huge execution issues. Anyone that sets out to solve these as-is will end up wasting a great deal of time, effort, and resources. It's generally bad form to approach a startup idea from the perspective of "wouldn't it be grea…

I find Ask HN good source of new ideas, sometimes Show HN comments too.

Re: Startup Ideas

#398

Post by elcritch »

doctoring wrote: post #344
gerdesj wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all medicine is practised within the legal framework that you labour under. If you are a doctor then you should be able to publish your real opinions here, within reason (prefaced with a short disclaimer if you deem it necessary, I would, along the lines of "I'm a MD, practising in and this my personal opinion") and I, for one, would love to hear them.

I'm an MD, practicing in the US. I don't know the actual legality. But here's what I do know from attempting to implement multiple projects within the US for clinical care and for clinical research: most providers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies we have worked with have balked at the ability to have high resolution data fed into their medical record or research data systems. In most cases, they are worried t…

From the situation as you describe it, it'll likely require a government mandate or "Good Samaritan" type of law to resolve the issue since it derives from fear of litigation. Unfortunate.

I imagine getting something like this implemented at a state level in one or two key states could enable collection of large scale medical data for analysis on behalf of the public.

Edit: Question for you, given your experience do you think it might be possible to convince big pharmaceuticals to collect high fidelity data if said data was collected into wearable devices and only processed after the fact? As analogy to use a "black box" recorder approach rather than flight control systems. Though not sure how far to take that "black box" analogy.

Re: Startup Ideas

#399

Post by Retra »

karmajunkie wrote: post #245
kordlessagain wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social networks are deliberately designed to be addictive Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale. Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt.

> Social networks are addictive because if they aren't, they fail and cease to be adopted at scale This makes it ok somehow? > Somehow we seem to be OK with this happening to ourselves. It is only when it happens to our innocent children that we start to revolt. I think you're begging the question on the first point. As for the second, not only is there mounting evidence that giving kids smartphones and constant soci…

It really wouldn't matter if it were ok or not. It's just that it becomes a matter of selection bias that you'd see them that way.

Re: Startup Ideas

#400

Post by Retra »

swendoog wrote: post #183
Finbarr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s hard to find startup ideas by reading the tech press and HN. It’s easy if you just look around you as you go about your daily life, then research anything you don’t understand. A few industries I’ve researched this way: * Porta potties * Dumpster rental * Bail bonds * Funerals There are millions of legitimate businesses out there that have hardly been touched by tech.

And what's hilarious is that the top comment in this thread is about starting yet another social network. Myopic to say the least.

Sure, but if you're willing to do anything to make a buck, that isn't any less myopic.
Post reply on HN