Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

old.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 184 posts

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#81

Post by sebleon »

m3rc wrote: post #67
BerislavLopac wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. New news. For this one, I would definitely say Twitter. As an example, my first info about the recent school shooting in Florida was a tweet by a scared student. Anything that happens anywhere in the world will spread on Twitter literally in an instant, and the same goes for non-realtime content published elsewhere.

And yet from a business perspective, Twitter is doing terribly. The news platforms we seem to gravitate to don't end up being profitable.

Twitter is profitable with revenues of $732M. What’s your definition of a business failure?

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#82

Post by hal9000xp »

pascalxus wrote: post #62
hal9000xp wrote: post #35

About "8. Dating". I think over last 10 years, online dating has not been solved at all. Here are typical problems which nearly all dating sites run into: 1. Women got way more attention than men. Such environment stimulates aggressive strategies on both sides. Men must spend a lot of effort to reach as many women as possible. Women must filter out males as hard as possible. Men are discouraged to carefully read prof…

For your point #1, the reason you have this problem is ultimately supply and demand. There's certain subsets of demographics that are highly uneven due to many factors: 1 of which is that men date younger women, hence women in greater demand than younger men, and older men in greater demand than older women, etc. A dating site won't be able to fix this.

It's true that it's supply and demand problem. However, I noticed that problem #1 is much more acute in online dating than in real life. I personally had much greater success in real life dating than online dating. It's strange since online dating supposed to make dating easier, not harder!

There should be a way to discourage quantitative behaviour (i.e. when you play statistics game) and encourage qualitative behaviour (i.e. when you are more focused on speaking with less people).

In other words, in real life, you don't try to talk with 100 women in one evening. However, it's cheap in online dating to spam many people.

So online dating should be closer to real life.

It should be more expensive to reach and even like more people in short timeframe. On the other hand, somehow we should guarantee that pictures (and probably video) should give maximum of information about appearance. It should be encouraged to provide as many high quality pictures as possible.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#83

Post by pascalxus »

HugThem wrote: post #40
pascalxus wrote: post #34

I solved #16! If you are "searching" for a food or recipe based on it's nutritional contents (for example: I want foods/recipes high in potassium and selenium, but low in sodium), check out https://kale.world/c You can search by over 20 different nutrient types, weight them, and filter them to your hearts content.

Where is that data from? Also, it looks like you republish recipes from other websites. Do you have their permission to do so?

the Data comes from the USDA Nutrient Database which is open to the public.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#84

Post by volkk »

matte_black wrote: post #59
paganel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DNA thing sounds dystopian. Maybe that’s where we’re heading, anyway, but it doesn’t feel right.

To me it sounds like the opposite, a utopia. All throughout history, genes have been passed down through natural selection based on short term traits. If we can select partners based on things like longevity, cancer resistance, disease risks, IQ, we can produce a better world filled with better humans, slowly but surely.

good thing that chances are you're not in charge of anything major (hopefully)

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#85

Post by sebleon »

matte_black wrote: post #59
paganel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DNA thing sounds dystopian. Maybe that’s where we’re heading, anyway, but it doesn’t feel right.

To me it sounds like the opposite, a utopia. All throughout history, genes have been passed down through natural selection based on short term traits. If we can select partners based on things like longevity, cancer resistance, disease risks, IQ, we can produce a better world filled with better humans, slowly but surely.

> better humans

Ah, sounds like you’re into eugenics. Do you believe humans are wise enough to determine what traits are favorable?

Increased longevity, for instance, seems short-sighted. We already have extreme population growth. While natural survival instincts strive to fight death, what’s the net benefit to society of helping more people make it through their 90s?

Phases like childhood and parenthood would become smaller fractions of life, does extending old age make your overall life experience better? Would society progress as quickly with more old people around?

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#86

Post by parametrek »

Zak wrote: post #79

As I was on HN in 2008 and paying attention to these sorts of things, I'll pretend I'm qualified to offer opinions. 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom - Streaming, both paid and ad-supported seems to be the answer here. It's prone to monopolies and music streaming doesn't seem to pay artists very well, but Netflix is producing quite a bit of original content. 2. Simplified browsing - mobile ate…

Hi! To expand on #20 there is a lot of stuff going on but like you said most of it is SEO spam.

It is further hampered by planned obsolescence and the increasingly fast pace that new products are released at. It is very difficult and expensive to maintain actual experience with everything in a product space.

It can't be crowd sourced either because most people are overly attached to their purchases and can't give objective comparisons between something they don't own.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#87

Post by matte_black »

volkk wrote: post #84
matte_black wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it sounds like the opposite, a utopia. All throughout history, genes have been passed down through natural selection based on short term traits. If we can select partners based on things like longevity, cancer resistance, disease risks, IQ, we can produce a better world filled with better humans, slowly but surely.

good thing that chances are you're not in charge of anything major (hopefully)

I have been interested in eugenics for a long time. At any moment I could really only be a seed round away from putting together a founding team and building out a dating service.

Maybe the time is not quite yet. Maybe genetic mapping services have to improve a bit more, and public opinion has to shift somewhat, but if the conditions ever align, I’ll probably take a shot at it. Biotech is the next great frontier after all, and that’s where I’d like to be.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#88

Post by hakanito »

abalone wrote: post #46

My take (just the first five): 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. Spotify & Apple Music. Pay $10/mo for unlimited access to most music. Took the wind out of music piracy. (TV & film are undergoing a similar transition to subscription models, more slowly.) 2. Simplified browsing...Grandparents and small children don't want the full web... Apps. Remember this list is from just one year after the…

> 3. New news

I think this is where blockchain tech will prosper. Integrated wallet in you browser and nano payments to purchase access to articles. I don't want to subscribe to FT or New York Times, because I only read one or two articles per week. But I would happily pay 50c per article to get a few days access

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#89

Post by GuiA »

hakanito wrote: post #88
abalone wrote: post #46

My take (just the first five): 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. Spotify & Apple Music. Pay $10/mo for unlimited access to most music. Took the wind out of music piracy. (TV & film are undergoing a similar transition to subscription models, more slowly.) 2. Simplified browsing...Grandparents and small children don't want the full web... Apps. Remember this list is from just one year after the…

> 3. New news I think this is where blockchain tech will prosper. Integrated wallet in you browser and nano payments to purchase access to articles. I don't want to subscribe to FT or New York Times, because I only read one or two articles per week. But I would happily pay 50c per article to get a few days access

+1.

The sad thing is that this is what Ted Nelson has been advocating for since the late 1960s (amongst with many other things that made his vision of a worldwide web much more compelling than the one we have now, but technologically unfeasible until very recently). If it ever materializes, it'll just be half a century+ late :)

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#90

Post by matte_black »

sebleon wrote: post #85
matte_black wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it sounds like the opposite, a utopia. All throughout history, genes have been passed down through natural selection based on short term traits. If we can select partners based on things like longevity, cancer resistance, disease risks, IQ, we can produce a better world filled with better humans, slowly but surely.

> better humans Ah, sounds like you’re into eugenics. Do you believe humans are wise enough to determine what traits are favorable? Increased longevity, for instance, seems short-sighted. We already have extreme population growth. While natural survival instincts strive to fight death, what’s the net benefit to society of helping more people make it through their 90s? Phases like childhood and parenthood would become…

I think lifespan is only worth increasing if there is a corresponding increase in health span. My grandmothers are both in their 90s and quite lucid and healthy. I would love to be at least in their condition when I’m in my 90s, but I also am serious about exercise and nutrition so I would hope I’d be even better off than them. They do nothing of that sort. Likewise, I’d like to be with a woman at that age who would also be just as healthy, and retain her faculties. Unfortunately, unless I extensively investigate a woman’s family history, I have no way of knowing if she’ll really be capable of living that long. What good is being a very old age if my partner is disabled and limits me from certain activities?

This inequality between lifespans is going to become a much greater concern for humans in the future, you will see. Perhaps it will become most noticeable as the baby boomers begin to die.

Also, I think society could progress even faster if the wisdom and experience of old people can be harnessed and not just tossed aside as “antiquated”. We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.

Post reply on HN