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

New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#111

Post by temuze »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #25

I hope someone is crazy enough for the Tall Tower project. It is the kind of project the Human Race needs to convince ourselves that we are still capable of getting Big Things done. If you don't know about it already, it is a project jump-started in part by Neal Stephenson, to build a 15km tall tower. http://hieroglyph.asu.edu/project/the-tall-tower/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE0n_5qPmRM

Cool! That reminds me of the 10,000 year clock: http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-you-need-to-know-a...

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#112

Post by pjungwir »

hooande wrote: post #85

There's a new sheriff in town. Previously YC treated some of these things, especially "AI" (whatever that means) as third rails. They've funded an extremely broad range of companies, but if you go back and check their past investments most of the areas listed in this RFS are underrepresented. Infrastructure, food and water, biotech, robotics...YC could be reaching much higher in terms of ambition than it has in the p…

I was in an accelerator program a few years ago alongside a peer company who had a new process for refining carbon nanotubes. It was founded by a university chemistry professor, and he basically had a working implementation in his office and wanted to scale it. That was not a very prestigious accelerator program, so he really seemed out of place alongside the other crazy startups. Maybe that's an example of a "world-changing" idea that YC could fund.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#113

Post by pg »

steve19 wrote: post #110
pg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day. You can't build a database in three months and show it off on Demo Day either, but we've funded many database companies. You don't need to have shipped by Demo Day. You just need to have achieved enough to convince investors to give you more money. What "enough" means depends on what you're building. Experienced investors know how muc…

Most databases I see on HN are a case of take algorithm X and apply it to problem Y through interfaces Z[], which is fantastic if you have problem Y and no good solution. Infinitely scalable nosql db running on raw SSDs is fantastic, for example, but not even close to designing a theoretical spaceship. Would or could ycombinator fund a company that could only tell you what to expect in 0.25 + n years where n>9 and Bo…

We'd fund anything that had big potential and effective founders. It might be harder to raise money after YC for something that was going to take a long time, but there are certainly some VCs who'd like an idea that was going to take a long time but had proportionately high expected value.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#114

Post by ntoshev »

buro9 wrote: post #99
svenkatesh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er... you think you're startup (microcosm), which is glorified forum software, will change "political systems, the structure of them and how populaces engage with them?"

Take an interest in anthropology and observe how communities interact and shape the environment (and systems of hierarchy and control) around them, and then consider how software can influence interactions. Not that I'd argue with you with where we're at today. The destination may be over the horizon, but the first milestone is right in front of us and looks like we've barely moved. Which is true.

The internet does rewire the fabric of society. Facebook has a big role in modern revolutions. I'm just skeptical that the forum format has the potential to bring further material advances.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#115

Post by ChuckFrank »

This is an excellent example Brand expansion. Whether through product depth or diversification successful brands all have to do this. What's especially impressive to me is that Mr. Altman has seen that by expanding the incubator platform, to technologies that previously were not included as primary entrepreneurial drivers (AI / Urban), Mr. Altman has opened the doors to an incredible amount of work that has already been done at research institutions world wide and is ready for investor grooming. It will be interesting to see who responds, and what they can bring to the table. My guess is that it won't be the bounty that YC has seen in software, but that there will be some really interesting winners that fit the scale / mvp problem inherent in YC's process just right. Hopefully the other incubators will follow suit. The world needs more than disruptive / labor saving software. The world needs more and better technology all around.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#116

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #103
supersystem wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that really matters for YC is if the company can be acquired. With Google just buying a bunch of robotics companies and the belief in "geek exceptionalism" as high as ever I've seen worse bets.

Okay, can they get Boeing to acquire one of those companies? Because those are the kinds of relevant players in most of these areas.

[deleted]

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#119

Post by foobarqux »

pg wrote: post #96
bfe wrote: post #35

This sounds terrific, but it doesn't seem self-consistent between wanting companies with the scale of ambition of SpaceX and Tesla, but insisting on early momentum being critical and avoiding a big and expensive initial project. Tesla took four years to introduce their first product, the Roadster. When they went public two years later, they had gone through a net loss of around 300 million dollars, and were still two…

http://boostedboards.com

That looks like a great company with a great product but it's only capital intensive relative to web software.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#120

Post by mikeyouse »

Crito wrote: post #50
dsugarman wrote: post #2

SpaceX and Tesla were really possible because of the large amounts of money that Elon put into the companies, it is estimated that Elon invested $100MM into SpaceX. his extremely impressive resume was not enough to receive the level of funding to get the company off the ground (get it?) how can a first time entrepreneur actually receive substantial investment without putting in such a large personal investment?

Was Elon's resume impressive back in 2002 when he was starting SpaceX? That was before even Tesla, so as far as I can tell back in 2002 his resume had a BS in Economics, a BS in Physics, X.com, and Paypal. Normally that would be plenty impressive, but I don't think that is a particularly impressive resume for somebody looking to start a rocket company. The connection between Paypal and space exploration isn't exactly…

> Was Elon's resume impressive back in 2002 [..] and Paypal

Paypal wasn't exactly some trivial event in his life, it IPOed in early 2002 and made him (and his investors) fabulously wealthy. It was also one of the first successful IPOs in the wake of the .com bubble bursting.

Musk made ~$25M from shares that were sold in the IPO, and his remaining stake of the company (10 percent!) was worth somewhere near $150M.[1] I'd say that's a pretty impressive resume.

It's a bit easier to start a rocket company when your net worth is in the 9-digit range and you just made a bunch of investors a ton of money in your first project.

[1] - http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-935360.html

Post reply on HN