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

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#201

Post by FD3SA »

DaniFong wrote: post #167
FD3SA wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is becoming abundantly clear, the world is run by politicians with little to no understanding or respect for science. These people, like most, believe in the "genius" theory, where an Einstein just magically appears and make a huge breakthrough once every hundred years. They don't understand that science is a slow, incremental process which happens over hundreds of years, and requires steady investment for progres…

You would find it fascinating, illuminating, and mind changing to read David Wootton's biography of Galileo. An outstanding scientist, and a relentless hustler like you would not believe. There are schleps involved in doing great work of all kinds. People capable of true greatness overcome them.

I am a huge fan of extroverted scientists such as Galileo and Feynman. But assuming all great thinkers are extroverted is doing scientific progress a disservice [1][2]. YC bases its model on picking winners who are excellent self-promoters. I believe there should be another way to support research for those who are not extroverted, but are extremely talented such as Perelman or Henry Cavendish.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#202

Post by malandrew »

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…

What these all had in common AFAICT is one or more über rich individuals that see it as their personal goal to make this happen. In a way, these are more than just companies. They are also one of the many hobbies the über rich can partake in. Had they not also been the hobby of one or more rich individuals, they probably would have never gotten as far as they have.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#203

Post by comatose_kid »

foobarqux wrote: post #119
pg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://boostedboards.com

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

Reminds me of Amiga which funded development of its PC by first bringing to market an Atari 2600 peripheral called the Joyboard.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#204

Post by comatose_kid »

FD3SA wrote: post #201
DaniFong wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would find it fascinating, illuminating, and mind changing to read David Wootton's biography of Galileo. An outstanding scientist, and a relentless hustler like you would not believe. There are schleps involved in doing great work of all kinds. People capable of true greatness overcome them.

I am a huge fan of extroverted scientists such as Galileo and Feynman. But assuming all great thinkers are extroverted is doing scientific progress a disservice [1][2]. YC bases its model on picking winners who are excellent self-promoters. I believe there should be another way to support research for those who are not extroverted, but are extremely talented such as Perelman or Henry Cavendish. 1. http://en.wikipedia…

Wozniak's genius might never have been exposed to the broader world had he not paired with a Steve Jobs.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#205

Post by malandrew »

raldi wrote: post #140

> We’re interested in better ways for people to live somewhere nice, work together, and have easier commutes. > If a company needs to raise a billion dollars of funding over the course of its life, that doesn’t scare us—in fact, that’s a plus. San Francisco's city government is falling over themselves to legalize and encourage in-law units, whether they're built in basements, garages, wherever. The problem is that th…

I would love to see someone create a "marketplace for rent control rights" in housing markets currently being fucked by rent control.

The idea here would be that anyone with rent control for a certain unit would be able to put out an offer for conditions under which they would vacate the property. Once you have standing offers for all units in a building, a developer could make a bid to satisfy those rent control rights and buy the property from building owner.

People with $800 rent control in say a studio might be willing to exchange their studio apartment for a 1 bedroom in a new building within 1-mile in the regions of a city, and this new unit would come with a contract for all the same rights as rent control, but that it would be limited to that tenant and that tenant alone (it can't be "passed" on by adding people to the contract).

So lets say I'm a developer with a few properties under construction. When I see a building where all the tenants have made offers that I can meet in some way using units in my projects under construction. I crunch the numbers and make offers to each of those individuals. Once I get all the tenants to accept the offers I make, I then approach the property owner and make an offer on the property. Once I buy the property, I can then give each of those tenants a property in my other buildings and then demolish the original building and build something taller with more units. Even if I destroy the old building and build something newer with only marginally more units because of zoning laws, I would now have a new construction free of current rent control rights.

The key here is to create legal mechanisms that make rent control rights a fungible commodity that can be traded. By making rent control rights fungible, you essentially decoupled the rent control from the physical structure, you create a way for the owners of the structures to be able to use the land under that structure for its highest and best use.

Furthermore, this approach is much more amiable than Ellis Act evictions since it gives rent control renters an out that is comparable to their current situation. Even more, it gives them the opportunity to move to a larger unit in case they've outgrown their current rent control place and would like to stay in the city to raise a family (e.g. someone with a 1-bedroom can requests offers for a two bedroom place at a comparable rate relative to their current living situation).

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#206

Post by tdaltonc »

kyro wrote: post #57
garry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Thalmic Labs and the Meta project are examples of longer term projects that raise money through YC. There are a bunch more in the current batch that have a much longer time frame. While the three month demo is a constraint, it is not one that kills ambitious projects at YC.

Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?

This isn't like normal tech-transfer. Most of the teams that would be looking for funding on a break-through idea, and can't get it from NIH/NSF aren't going to be seasoned tenured faculty. They're going to be senior graduate students and young post-doc's. They'll know the field, but they will have radical ideas and won't fit in to the academic funding heterodoxy. They'll probably be 25-35.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#207

Post by carterschonwald »

I can understand a) this will diversify their portfolio b) increase their risk negligibly c) increase their long term positive variance appreciably.

But how on earth will participating in YC help? its not some damn webapp or incrementalizable b2c/b2b product. Some things also don't have a natural exit, even if the biz outcomes are grand and/or interesting.

seriously, convince me its worth my time to apply even though I don't want investors. please. (I know many folks who did YC and are happy with it, I just don't see how it'd help in the domains I do work in.)

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#208

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #129
dsugarman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree when it comes to software, but if we are talking about long term ground breaking technology.. how can you start a spaceship company without a $100M initial investment? what results can you show at an early stage? it's an honest question and I think about this all the time. If you can solve the funding issue, I would bet a lot more people will choose the more ambitious projects. What can a spaceship compa…

By not starting with spaceships, but instead with something that can evolve into spaceships. Here's the first product of Boeing, which built the bottom stage of the Saturn V: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/bw.page

[deleted]

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#209

Post by twic »

jonlemmon wrote: post #67

"We're interested in ways to use the Internet to fix government" That's what Loomio is doing: http://boingboing.net/2014/03/19/loomio-democratic-decision-... Building infrastructure for citizens to self-govern. Using the internet to enable large-scale decision-making, without the need of large government.

Yes! This is heading in the right direction!

Whereas, sadly, i was shaking my head at some of this list. How could any person with the faintest clue write both these things:

> Healthcare. Healthcare in the United States is badly broken.

> Education. If we can fix education, we can eventually do everything else on this list

Healthcare in the United States is badly broken because your system of government is a complete mess. The solution is not healthcare startups, or some kind of breakthrough in education, it is to adopt the system every other civilised country on the planet uses, which is to make healthcare as whole a service, not a business.

Oh, and how about:

> Transportation and housing. About half of all energy is used on transportation

We already have trains, trams, buses, and bicycles. These technologies solve the transport problem and are all at least a century old. But the government doesn't build infrastructure for these, it just keeps building physical and financial infrastructure for cars, which are probably the daftest invention in the history of civil transport. Don't get me wrong, cars are fantastic sporting and extreme environment vehicles, but by now it is abundantly clear that they have no place in everyday life.

> And housing continues to get more expensive, partially due to difficulties in transportation.

But mostly due to the fact that existing homeowners have no financial interest in increasing the supply of housing, but, because of the way the government's power over zoning and eminent domain is beholden to their interests, do have a stranglehold on it.

But of course, fixing government is not something you can do with a startup, and it's not something Mr Altman could make much IRR off, so that's not what he's suggested.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#210

Post by FD3SA »

comatose_kid wrote: post #204
FD3SA wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a huge fan of extroverted scientists such as Galileo and Feynman. But assuming all great thinkers are extroverted is doing scientific progress a disservice [1][2]. YC bases its model on picking winners who are excellent self-promoters. I believe there should be another way to support research for those who are not extroverted, but are extremely talented such as Perelman or Henry Cavendish. 1. http://en.wikipedia…

Wozniak's genius might never have been exposed to the broader world had he not paired with a Steve Jobs.

Precisely. It seems to me insane that there are Wozniaks out there who are undiscovered. We shouldn't need to depend on a Jobs to find an introverted genius. Woz could have done wonders at a Bell Labs or equivalent. He was successful regardless due to his interests being aligned with the growing microcomputer industry at the time, but he would not have been as lucky had he been born in another era.

My point is that we need research institutions with stable funding over long periods for talented people to push the boundaries of science, without relying on the circuses of VCs and Wall St.

Post reply on HN