a16z Programming Test

Think micro-services supplying REST APIs over HTTP - that's going to be same-y after a few years yes, but behind that is a world of business apps, integration challenges, complex algorithms and calculations - sorry I just see "web development" as "anything that has of will have an http access point" which I mentally count as "pretty much everything from here on in"

Programming tests do generally test for ability to apply known solutions quickly - it's about all they do do. You just have to know the known solutions (oh look calculate primes).

As for finding productive coders - well the amount of false negatives is large, and the false positive rate is probably higher (plenty of people who can waltz through these tests i find fairly poisonous to morale) so I am not a big fan - but if you need to make a first cut this is a good start

The US DoD, DARPA, NSF, and NIH have long shown the world "how it's done", in total for 70+ years.

The simplest arithmetic shows that US information technology (IT) venture capital (VC) is not a very good business compared with consumer Internet: That is, a US IT VC firm might get up to assets under management of $5 billion or so, but the founders of Google, Facebook, and more have more than that in their personal net worth.

One problem with VC is, even if they decide to take their e-mail seriously, really the best they can do is just from what arrives in their e-mail, and far from VC there are some serious obstacles here: First, a standard assumption is that, since computers are to be used in the work (they likely do remain the great largely unexploited opportunity), the assumption is that computer science is the best academic background. Well, that assumption is false; if want to be quite serious about the work, then that assumption is badly false. Second, for really good results, it will be necessary for some good people with good academic backgrounds in crucial fields and topics outside of computer science to pursue entrepreneurship, and so far the appropriate US academic culture discourages this.

For this assumption, the US DoD knows that it is largely false and, thus, concentrates on pure and applied mathematics, mathematical and applied physics, and some relatively mathematical topics in electronic and other parts of engineering. The DoD makes very heavy use of computing but not so much of computer science.

So, for good results in VC, it will be necessary to catch up with the DoD and get good people with the 'right stuff' from academic fields other than computer science, and that catch up effort will be difficult.

Really, for good projects, the situation is much better on the entrepreneur's side of the table because there one can cook up terrific stuff instead of just waiting for it to arrive via e-mail.

My point that VCs and A16Z ignore their e-mail really was well supported by your statement that e-mail is about the worst way to contact a VC partner. Okay, the VC partners don't want to take e-mail seriously. Bizarre, but true, and so be it.

For the project in question, once it gets enough 'traction' to be of interest to a VC, the revenue will be way past when the project would accept equity funding. E.g., one VC responded that they wanted to see 100,000 unique visitors a month before investing. Okay, but for the project in question that would be about $40,000 a month in revenue from a server with $1500 in parts and an Internet connection costing about $100 a month. With the $40,000 a month, VC equity funding, a C-corp with VCs on the Board, etc. would be about as welcome as a skunk at a garden party.

One big reason: For the project in question with its technology the VCs can't evaluate, there will be more such work to do, less important than the work done already but, still, very much worth doing. But, of course, the Board would have to approve the organization and budgets for such work. Tilt! A Board of VCs would not be able to do such work because they would not be able to understand the project they were being asked to approve. So, such a Board would a hole in the bottom of the boat of the company.

The current A16Z Web site mentions that the number of VC firms has been shrinking. Since they refused to read their e-mail, easy to believe.

Darwin has a lot of work to do and, thus, is a very busy guy; still Sand Hill Road and Winter Street are due for a visit from Charles just any day now. Likely what will be left are firms willing to read e-mail and evaluate projects with new, advanced, powerful, valuable technology that is the crucial core of a valuable business. In the meanwhile, entrepreneurs should concentrate on some good research for some good projects that can be brought to market and significant revenue with, say, a server from $1500 in parts and an ordinary Internet connection. The research is the crucial part.

Sure, VCs won't invest in projects based on research, not even if the research is already in production quality code. But think of the flip side: For such a project, VCs won't invest in any competition, either!

So, unless something changes, which I don't predict, it was a waste of time I wouldn't recommend doing the test nor applying to work at a company like this.

That's definitely the plan except for the part about "mere mortals".

Mortals suffice, but not "mere mortals": Instead need some help, or, say, need to "stand on the shoulders of giants". The giants in question are not in computer science -- "a field with much that is new and good however the new is not good and the good is not new", too close to being fully true.

Without standing on the shoulders of the right giants, your "mere mortals" is fully correct -- can't do it. That is, one guy has, in practice, no chance of reinventing all that stuff needed from the giants. Indeed, it's tough enough just to get through the exercises in one of the better books needed. More than one guy? For the original work needed, that is nearly always done by just one guy; two are less good.

Regarding CS majors, there's always the possibility of an individual being great at the theory part, but not having much programming experience. This should be rare though; during my own CS degree, we coded so much that I was frequently dreaming about code. If it's provided in the CV, I like to scan through the subjects list of the candidate - the ones who don't actually like programming seem to have an aversion to taking CS courses for elective subjects. As always though, YMMV, and it's a good idea to keep an open mind.