Live data from Hacker News

Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

paulgraham.com

281–290 of 437 posts

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#281
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this? "In the developing world, 24,000 children under the age of five die every day from preventable causes like diarrhea contracted from unclean water." - UNICEF That's 54 jumbo jets a day. I also remain unimpressed by the ambition of his list. And by yours.

They die because they can't afford clean water, so there's no money to be made in solving that problem. Capitalism does not have a heart.

No, they die because they are ignorant of sanitation and therefore don't have any. Have you read anything on the subject, or are you just assuming?

Secondly, there is certainly money to be made in solving the problem, if you're not a truly lazy thinker who bases his conclusions off what he hears in TV news soundbites:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/clean-water-...

http://www.waterforpeople.org/programs/how-we-work/initiativ...

http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Sanitationisabusiness.pdf

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/green-inventors-solar-sa...

Lastly, I'm sure that TOMS and Warby Parker would be interested to hear that there's no money in helping poor people gain access to shoes or glasses, as well.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#282

In my experience, Sand Hill Road does not want "frighteningly ambitious" startup ideas if substantial capital expenditure is involved. (In fairness, they are willing to hear those pitches – I guess that's something.) > Now Steve is gone there's a vacuum we can all feel. Pixar got funded only because Steve Jobs (Steve Jobs!) paid for it of pocket to the tune of $50 million total. It's Pixar that made him a billionaire…

I'm curious. How does that work? You transform the film action into 3D and can then manipulate the animation?

The video on AngelList looks like just a rendering demo, and I can't find any other references.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#283

Also frighteningly ambitious is the prospect of any meaningful startup driven disruption in the energy industry. Which is a worry considering how desperately disruption is needed.

Electric aviation and space launch. See our web-site, http://electrictakeoff.com, for details. We are looking for collaborators, co-founders, volunteers, etc.

I agree with PG that ambitious startups are better. However, I think engineers should focus on sectors where the customers are dissatisfied. Aviation seems like a good candidate. Most people dislike oil dependence also.

Tactically, we are aiming to fly advertising banners as a short-term path to revenue. The next market would be air freight with prices lower than diesel trucking. Passengers would come last after the technology is proven.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. Stop. Bringing that old saw back while claiming that 'this time it is for real'. Humans can do wonderful things when the alternative is to starve or lose their habitat. It is not different this time, it will not be different the next time, nor any time after that. Won't happen until we have a perfect AI which can do all jobs. Then, and only then, will humanity take a permanent vacation.

I'm not talking permanent. What is different this time is this: a) The transition will happen more quickly because the kind of intelligence you need to clean a room is very broadly applicable. It affects almost all manual tasks at the same time. b) Contrary to earlier transitions, there will not be many tasks left that untrained people can perform and that are similar enough to the old ones. A farmer can go work in a…

The same arguments were raised the last time something like this happened.

And while it is true that a farmer can go to work in a factory there is very, very little overlap between these two professions (could a factory worker go tend a farm and survive? Unlikely) -- just as there is little overlap between cleaning toilets and being a cashier in a shop.

Oh and cashiers are not going to be replaced by the same AI that can clean a bathroom, do the dishes and wipe the floor.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#285

These ideas, and the idea that they are frighteningly ambitious, clearly come from the personal experience of living in northern California and dealing with tech startups most of your time. These are largely first world problems. Here are some ambitious ideas: - distributed power generation that's cheap enough and renewable enough so people in rural parts of sub-Saharan Africa don't have brown outs anymore. - synthet…

Solving first world problems gets you first world ROI. Y-Combinator is an investment firm. I'm not judging, I don't have a dog in the fight. But I'm pretty sure that's why you don't see stuff like stopping brown outs in rural sub-Saharan Africa on this list. There's no first-world money in it.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#286
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but "cleaning" is yet another word for artificial intelligence. I think you underestimate the power of economics. Can you imagine how many people are busy cleaning things? I find it amazing that the difference between tasks like washing cloths and cleaning toilets is so small for humans and so huge for machines. We've had washing machines forever, but we're still cleaning our toilets manually. And cleaning is jus…

It seems like a lot of people disagree with you, but I agree with this viewpoint. That the Luddite fallacy will be a fallacy forever is a fallacy in itself. I've said this before, but I keep repeating my viewpoint. At some point, we will have automated too many of the "useful" things to do for there to be enough work in the private sector for everyone. There are only so many cars, houses, gadgets and foods humanity n…

"...at that time the economy of the United States will be going down and the next boat people will be Americans leaving America looking for work abroad."

Jacques Attali in his 1990 book "Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order"

Still quite relevant, though I'd alter the quote to say "virtual boat people" since jobs are turning out ot be anywhere where you have an internet connection.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#287

In re #4, I'd suggest that your biggest hurdle isn't movie studios (as we often like to suggest here). It's Comcast. It's Time Warner Cable. It's AT&T. These companies exercise an oligopoly on most people's internet connectivity, TV UI and UX, DVR experience, etc. They also set the terms, with the networks and studios, for what you actually get to watch on demand. They pushed their crappy DVR onto the masses, effecti…

Here's another tip: I'm African, and I don't understand what you are talking about here. Maybe the next entertainment innovation should force global scale...

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#288
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They die because they can't afford clean water, so there's no money to be made in solving that problem. Capitalism does not have a heart.

No, they die because they are ignorant of sanitation and therefore don't have any. Have you read anything on the subject, or are you just assuming? Secondly, there is certainly money to be made in solving the problem, if you're not a truly lazy thinker who bases his conclusions off what he hears in TV news soundbites: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/clean-water-... http:…

My statement was not meant to be factual but rather indicative of a certain cynicism on my part about what I think the motivations behind people starting (the vast majority) of companies are. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#289

Man finds a black kind of rock that burns; discovers that you can get a lot of this rock if you dig deeper, but deep mines have water. In order to successfully mine this rock, man devises a steam powered engine (neatly enough powered by this same rock) to pump out the water. No, not the steam engines you're familiar with. This is the Newcomen Steam Engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_engine The Newcomen Eng…

Similar, but different story. In the 800s, looking for an immortality elixir, man discovers a solid black chemical explosive. In time (around 1132), this finds itself as an early propellant in ranged missiles. Later it uses in other applications: mining, firearms, entertainment, bombs and myriad others.

But the use as missile propellant remains. Looking for similar, but more powerful propellants for these missiles (to give them more kinetic impact, longer range, and other properties).

Progress was slow until the late 19th and early 20th centuries when liquid fueled rockets were invented as well as an entire host of various chemical explosives with vastly different properties.

Progress was rapid, and soon missiles could travel hundreds of miles, and had enough extra capacity to deliver even more powerful explosives to their target.

However, accuracy was poor at best. Various types of complex control systems were designed and built into the missiles. As man realized that missiles could be scaled up and lift payloads up into orbit and beyond, bringing the payloads down in the desired location became even more important.

Inertial systems, radio control, celestial navigation and even attempts at manned guidance!

However, navigating is a general problem, and not just useful for missiles. Ships, people, surveyors, and others, all need to know where on the earth they are. In the 60s, with the advent of orbital missiles and satellites, a system of satellites was placed in orbit. And using a complicated collection of quartz oscillators, early computers, and various radio receiving equipment, one could (after a number of minutes collecting data and inputting it into dedicated guidance computers) determine where they were on Earth to accuracy of a few hundred meters.

Enter the nuclear age which gave us ultra-precise clocks, combined with transistors, then integrated circuits and all segments of the navigation problem were improved. By 1978, these components were small and reliable enough that missiles pushed constellation after constellation of satellites into orbit. Ground receivers were small enough to fit into the bodies of other missiles enabling them to navigate to targets with accuracy in the single meters with constant positional fixes along the flight path.

Realizing that the navigation computers and radios were now small enough to fit on a missile, it also meant they could be fit onto ships, large aircraft, and large trucks.

Later improvements to atomic timekeeping, computers, radios and other pieces meant that the receivers could be made man carry-able and fit into backpacks, small vehicles and on and on. Accuracy was improved to inches, and missiles could suddenly be dropped into selected air vents in specific buildings.

Except suddenly nobody cared as much about moving missiles, they found that knowing where they and their stuff was in the world was far more interesting and useful. Further improvements in computing meant that the navigational radios and computers could fit into a handheld device, then be integrated with high quality geospatial data, heuristic path finding algorithms and suddenly we have satnav in our cars.

Reusing the same navigation tech and we find we can improve the geospatial data considerably, improving navigation. Fixing these devices to the ground and we can measure plate tectonics for the first time, track fleets of vehicles in real-time, saving millions of dollars in fuel, compute phasors in power lines improving power delivery systems, ultra precise atomic clocks means precise time synchronization (with accuracy +-10 ns).

Further improvements in miniaturization puts navigation into handheld phones, and suddenly we know what restaurants are nearby. Tie it to a database collecting reviews and we know if it's good. Tied to the previously developed navigation system and we can even get walking directions there.

In other words, most people don't need to guide a missile, but they do need to find a good place to eat. And when the technology developed for busting a bunker left the avionics systems it got people and their stuff where they wanted to go faster and with less confusion than before.

Today it's hard to imagine a time when we didn't know the exact location of just about everything.

Re: Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas

#290
post #279
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fundamental difference between a scientific study and data-mining. Science is based on probability theory. Until we discover the "grand theory of everything", out other theories will be only approximate, and out experimental results not 100% predictable. Therefore, scientists consider a prediction as correct if the chance of predicting something at random is less than some probability, usually 10%, 5% or 1…

No, if 10 predictions each have a 10% chance of a false positive, you will always have on average 1 false positive. Whether you test them on the same data or not doesn't matter (unless 10 predictions test the same thing, of course.) What you need is a control sample that you know should be negative, so you can actually measure the false positive rate. (But with a sufficiently large base sample, you can look for corre…

> No, if 10 predictions each have a 10% chance of a false positive, you will always have on average 1 false positive. Whether you test them on the same data or not doesn't matter

That's true.

I should have said it differently. In fact, I'm not even sure that my understanding is correct.

The problem with not using new data to test each new prediction is, that if a scientist wants to show A on data X, but data X doesn't confirm A, the scientist modifies A slightly and now tests A' on X, which is again rejected, and then modifies it again, testing A'' on X, and so on... until the data X actually confirms hypothesis A'''''''!

That's the real problem - using data without a predefined plan for how you will use this data. In the above example, the data that you collected affected your decision-making process, so your results are not independent of the data (and thus not replicable!).

Post reply on HN