651–660 of 768 posts
Under what circumstances would you consider a company with: - Solo founder - No revenue yet - 13-15k monthly active users and 1200-1500 daily active users - Launched 6 months ago Or is it not even worth trying yet?
My company Krewe ( https://www.gokrewe.com ) is aimed at helping people make a new group of close friends in their neighborhood that they can see every day and build a strong local community. I only have a couple hundred sign ups (after about three weeks) so I don't know for sure that the concept will work. I also don't have a cofounder. Should I apply to YC now, or potentially wait for the next batch when I would (h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Build a simulation(in some multiphysics simulation tool) that shows your concept may work and can be validated by a 3rd party.
That not a great example. A better one is to build a v0.00000001 that actually works but is obviously not the final product nor even an MVP. E.g. a technical demonstration of some component.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, we are so busy, there are so many companies, and ideas are worth so little, that most of us don't think twice about a specific company once we move on to the next applications. The very best ideas usually don't seem worth stealing.
The concept of ideas being worth near to nothing is new to me, can you explain that thinking? Without monetary arguments this seems not right.
Obviously it depends a bit on the details but if you think of the big hits, saying say Alta Vista is crap let's build a better search engine or Myspace is crap let's build a better one of those wasn't worth much for the basic ideas because hundreds of people no doubt thought that. Now the detailed algorithms may have been worth something. But it's mostly in the actually building the better thing that counts.
I guess knowing which ideas are good would be valuable. If someone had said you'd make a fortune doing myspace with real names and no flashing nonsense that would have been useful but just having a list of a 1000 ideas with no testing is probably not worth much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the additions. Don't know much about RethinkDB, but as for the others: Reddit is a great example of founders without pedigree. Although it hasn't been too successful as a company, it's created phenomenal value for its users. I definitely spend more time on Reddit than Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat/Twitter combined. I'd say Waterloo is elite in the tech sense, and Apoorva worked at Amazon in fulfillment, so i…
Reddit hasn't been too successful as a company? I'd imagine their estimated value is at least 100 million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are actually citing examples of execution excellence and IP, rather than "ideas" as the word is used in early stage VC circles. For example the idea of making a low radar cross section aircraft is not new or valuable since right after radar was first developed. However executing on that idea to create the stealth fighter design produces something very valuable.
But how to create stealth took some darned good "ideas". Sure, the startup "circles" regard an idea as a short description of a sentence or two to a family member, neighbor, or prospective user/customer of how the new product/service will look to them. But, then what about how to make that product/service work? Ignore that? That part should be crucial: Crucial for having the first good or a much better product/soluti…
Has YC ever considered having a control group by randomly pre-accepting certain applicants into the program automatically? I'd be curious to see the stats on how successful that group would be versus the group that's actually picked by the committee.
Or another idea along these lines might be to have a checkbox on the application that says "Submit to audience choice if rejected" and, if they don't get in, those applications are opened to voting by HN users above a certain karma threshold. Pick the five highest ranked applications and bring them in as a normal YC company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She wants mass firings of people like me and you for no other reason than our sex and the color of our skin.
This seems reasonable if (and only if!) people who match you on sex and skin color are unfairly overrepresented, and if the meaning is to fire those who aren't qualified, not to indiscriminately fire to meet a quota. I read both of those things as implied by that tweet and its context, but I can see how they're not obvious. Without that context, I admit the sentence is racist and sexist, but in context, it seems like…
Asian people are more overrepresented in tech than Europeans. If Shanley said to "fire some fuckin asian guys to get it done", would you support this comment? Why / why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a job of the government to counteract destabilizing influences such as the wealth concentrating effects of technology and under-competition. As a foreigner living in the US, the US government honestly sucks eggs at it. Healthcare, banks, cable, broadband, cell phone service, Google, Apple, Microsoft... all classic antitrust cases across the board, waiting for an un-captured regulator. If world governments conti…
A Universal Basic Income is not necessarily paid to everyone, at least not directly. A UBI means a certain income level is guaranteed, if you are earning more than the guaranteed level, you may not be given anything in addition. This is most clearly demonstrated by one proposed implementation of UBI, namely, a negative income tax. A negative income tax would entail those earning below the guaranteed level being paid…
Unless taxation and reporting are made trivial (which is hard without giving up on privacy including cash), the poorest do not have the money or time to jump through hoops. Hence UBI, having the minimal requirements, will help the most of the poorest. This more than compensates for the (arguable, but I'll concede it) bug of giving some money to the rich as well.