> Whenever someone makes a system to select for the best
For the "best", let's be a little clear: We're not looking for just the best looking application to YC, how to get into YC, or even how to get funding on Demo Day at YC.
Instead we're looking for how to make a big splash, say, a company worth at least $1 billion, in the real world of real business. And this company is intended to be quite
new in some important respects. The company is necessarily intended to be significantly exceptional.
Then,
there's a nagging issue here: The best that we
want and are looking for may not be much like the rest in either results or qualifications and approach. So, looking at the rest, or even the ones accepted to YC, or even the best of the YC alumni, may
not be a very good way to look for the best for the future results desired.
E.g., starting in 1942 or so, can't expect to get an A-bomb by drawing heavily on the lessons from the history of bomb making. "Q. So, let me get this straight: You intend
to build a bomb with the explosive energy of 20,000
tons of TNT. And for your second time at bat, you
want a bomb of 1 million tons of TNT? Just one
little question: What size airplane did you have
in mind to lift such a bomb off the ground? A. Sir,
we were thinking of a B-29, and for the first bomb,
taking off from the Marianas. Q. But a B-29,
the whole thing, doesn't weight anywhere near
20,000 tons. A. Yes, Sir, we do realize that.
Still, we believe that we know what we are
doing and will be successful."
Can't expect to get the first good microprocessor by drawing heavily on
the history of electronics back to discrete
transistors and vacuum tubes. Can't expect to
get an iPhone 6 by looking at telephones back to
black plastic with a dial and a four foot long
cotton covered cord.
Instead, for such examples
of exceptional success, need work that is powerful and
significantly new, i.e., necessarily not visible in the
rear view mirror. Sorry 'bout that! :-)!