New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies • Hacker News Board

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#51

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:40 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #22

> Throughout history, when the cost of energy has come down a lot (for example, with the steam engine) I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy. edit: Can't believe I'm getting downvoted. I thought this place was full of pedantic engineers, like me? The steam engine turns energy into work. If anything, it probably increased the price of energy (at least temp…

> I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy.

If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.

If you were to consult your physics textbook, somewhere near the beginning under the heading "Conservation of Energy", you'd see that the steam engine neither creates nor destroys energy, merely transforms it into a different form.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#52

Post by ThePhysicist » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:42 PM UTC

"Science. Science seems broken. The current funding models are broken and favor political skill over scientific genius. We need new business models for basic research. There are a lot of areas where scientific developments can have huge commercial applications — materials, neuroscience, climate engineering, and cheaper/better ways to get to space, just to name a few—and we’d love to figure out a way for it to happen. "

I think he misunderstands the meaning of the term "basic research":

"Basic research (also called pure research or fundamental research) is a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena without specific applications or products in mind." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research)

So the very idea of basic research is that there are no forseeable commercial applications (or indeed any practical applications).

Personally, I think that private funding is NOT suited to finance fundamental research, since the time horizon there is way too long for most VC companies, and I doubt that many of them would finance something "just because it is interesting and we don't understand it yet".

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#53

Post by crassus » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:46 PM UTC

This is fantastic. Now I'd like to see the people with the capital to fund the series As and Bs of these companies make a similar commitment. Don't leave the future entirely in the hands of Musk and Thiel.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#54

Post by crassus » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

breadbox wrote: post #37

cjoh wrote: post #26

"Of particular interest to us are ways to use the Internet to fix government—for example, crowdfunding social services." Aren't all social services crowdfunded?

Indeed. One could argue that government is the original crowdfunding. This is actually kind of a nice illustration of how backwards our ideas of social services have become.

Despite democratic propaganda, government is a particular institution within society with its own particular capabilities, faults, and goals. It is not an avatar of the will of the united people.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#55

Post by d0m » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

We're dead serious about applying and getting in YC.

We do RFS #8 (Ephemeralization Apps) and now, thanks to this post, we're also on the RFS "Improving healthcare".

I have a request to existing founders, mentors or partners of YC:

We have an amazing team and a real problem we're solving in healthcare. Hundreds of doctors are waiting to use our app. I'm wondering if you could help us by reviewing our application and sharing some feedback/advices. Please don't be shy, that would be really appreciated. Just ping me phzbox at gmail

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#56

Post by mattgreenrocks » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

kyro wrote: post #7

I feel like this is a big shift in focus for YC and for the industry if others follow suit. This will do a lot of good in changing the image of the typical startup, from who starts them to what their ambitions are, signaling to those in other industries that the valley isn't just about young code-slingers and iOS apps. I hope this encourages people in STEM with years of specialized domain experience to look at starti…

This would reinvigorate some of us who are jaded by SV's astounding lack of ambition towards actually solving hard problems as well.

I didn't become an engineer to crank out CRUD apps in some rock star's crazy DSL all day.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#57

Post by kyro » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

garry wrote: post #49

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…

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?

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#58

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #42

marvy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you know what he meant. But just in case: the steam engine allowed people to harness energy that would have been impractical or even impossible to harness without it.

I totally know what he meant, but he's wrong--the steam engine likely increased the price of energy, at least in the short term, but creating increased demand for it.

"The price of energy" is kind of a confusing term when you're comparing fuel that may be burned to produce steam with fodder that may be fed to draft animals. Per unit of work produced, coal beats hay hands-down. It may be that the price of coal increased once it was used for more than heating and smelting, but that's the price of coal, not "the price of [mechanical] energy".

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#59

Post by larrys » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 10:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #19

kyro wrote: post #7

I feel like this is a big shift in focus for YC and for the industry if others follow suit. This will do a lot of good in changing the image of the typical startup, from who starts them to what their ambitions are, signaling to those in other industries that the valley isn't just about young code-slingers and iOS apps. I hope this encourages people in STEM with years of specialized domain experience to look at starti…

Someone needs to show that you can actually make money with something like this. The problem with these sorts of ventures is that besides being capital-intensive and risky, it can be quite hard to capture the economic benefits of the development in a way that justifies the investment. There's also the issue of whether Silicon Valley has the requisite infrastructure to facilitate these sorts of projects. If you want t…

"Someone needs to show that you can actually make money with something like this."

And interestingly it also seems to go against Mark Cubans SV hypothesis as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7430152

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#60

Post by aaronblohowiak » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 10:04 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #23

rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone needs to show that you can actually make money with something like this. The problem with these sorts of ventures is that besides being capital-intensive and risky, it can be quite hard to capture the economic benefits of the development in a way that justifies the investment. There's also the issue of whether Silicon Valley has the requisite infrastructure to facilitate these sorts of projects. If you want t…

> If you want to do projects in robotics, DARPA has both money to give you, deep connections with the universities developing the basic science, and a program manager to manage the project that typically has a PhD in the field. The last head of DARPA now heads up Google X. SFBA has tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars available to it. Capability isn't the question. Its the will that matters. As an investor,…

Speaking of the profitability of the invention of the laser, you might enjoy reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould