Elon Musk's misguided attack on New York Times - <AUTHOR> http://dubdux.tumblr.com/post/43138764461/teslas-elon-musks-misguided-attack-on-new-york-times In essence, Elon Musk doesn't think the New York Times author went far enough out of his way to make sure the car succeeded. (In fact, the author made way more concessions than a normal user would. He drove under the speed limit. He let the cabin temperature drop. He called Tesla HQ for tips and triage recharging locations. I wouldn't have done any of that.) <comment><USER2> This post completely reflect my thoughts on the whole saga - but there's one more thing which sticks out for me, something briefly touched upon in this article: filling up a petrol car to do 500+ miles takes <5 minutes. Charging a Model S to do 500 miles takes over 2 hours. I think that's one of the main issues people have, that to do a journey which would typically be insignificant, it requires a large amount of preparation.

If I woke up in the morning and went to my car to drive to work and I found I didn't have enough mileage - despite it having twice as much as I needed the night before - I'd be pretty annoyed. Yes, everyone says that you should leave the car plugged in over-night, but it's such a different way of working with cars and something which feels like it shouldn't be required, which I think makes people a little unsure about buying electric cars.

<comment><USER3> Most people regularly drive short distances to and from work. An electric car charged overnight perfectly fits that model and covers 99% of most people's driving habits. Just like most people don't need to own a pickup truck. They borrow one once a year. Most people aren't driving hundreds of miles in a day on a regular basis. And if you do need to drive hundreds of miles? Then an electric car isn't for you.

I ski most weekends which is ~350 miles of driving and plugging in the car really isn't a huge deal. I did it when I had a diesel with an engine block warmer.

The exception receiving so much focus is kind of baffling. People seem really invested in finding faults with electric vehicles.

<comment><USER4> This has always bugged me about people complaining about the rage of electric cars. How often do you really drive 150 miles in a day? Not very damn often. If you do then maybe an electric car isn't for you. It doesn't have to be perfect for everyone.

If you are travelling long distance in a gas car, do you put in just enough gas to get to the next station? Hell no, you fill that sucker up.

It takes longer to charge a car than it does to put in gas. Duh, we all know that. If anything having to wait an hour between charges is a great opportunity for restaurants and shopping centers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Perhaps most worrying is the single-mindedness of the Internet hive mind that has, over the past few days, eaten up every word of Elon Musk."

Very untrue. From the beginning, a lot of people found fault in Musk's twitter and CNBC performances, and its clear in ensuing discussion here and elsewhere that people who initially sided with Musk are adjusting their views based on the blog post and the NYT defense.

This isn't to say that there aren't Elon evangelists, but the response wasn't as uniform as the visceral reaction to SOPA

<comment><AUTHOR> I was looking mostly at 1) Reddit, 2) Hacker News and 3) Twitter. I saw very, very few signs of critical thought that questioned Musk.

But yes, I am certain I am not the only person to see that Elon was exaggerating when he called the article "fake."

<comment><USER5> It's hard to read these sources to determine the nature of the hive mind because the sorting algorithms gives higher weight to a few people with a lot of karma or popularity, so if you just looked at the top post you would see those people and erroneously conclude that the Internet agreed with them.

On twitter, for instance, you are most likely seeing tweets from popular people (which is not really representative). On reddit and HN the position on the page isn't representative of the pool's view.

I brought up the same problem in the thread regarding HN hiding stories: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5226147>

<comment><USER6> If you see it from ppl who have lots of karma/popularity or popular ppl on twitter is exactly the point. These people are singled out because they have been promoted by others who agree with them. Just the same if someone who had the opposite view were upvoted/popular they would be singled out.

<comment><USER5> The claim was that he saw very few people question musk. And I am saying that its true if all you did was look at the first few comments. If you actually read the comments deeper in the discussion, you find a bevy of critical posts.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in general but I am refuting the claim about the quantity. My complaint is really with the algorithm used to determine what shows up at the top here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's been strange to watch this saga unfold and see how quickly the idea that this data unequivocally discredits Broder has propagated. All the data shows me is that humans aren't as precise with data as computers can be. The one solid point of dispute is that Broder says he was cleared by Tesla representatives to leave Norwich with a very low charge, and Musk says he was not. Unfortunately, unless there are recordings of the conversations released, we may never know the truth of that.

I don't find the original article damning for the Model S- it just shows that the range is definitely affected by the cold, and that there are some additional factors that need to be considered that are different from gas engines. Any person who is considering an electric car should take those factors into account- for some they will be dealbreakers, and others they won't.

</comment><comment><USER8> tl;dr: They take too long to charge so clearly nobody should wait 58 minutes instead of 46 or whatever.

Hell, why even bother charging for 46 minutes? Charge it for however long you estimate it takes you to fill up the gas in your other car, and complain when the car runs out then, too.

Not a good piece at all; can't say whether that reflects on the author too or this is just him/her being mindkilled over, of all things, charging time.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point is that the author /did/ charge the car sufficiently. The car told him he could make each leg of the trip, and why would he waste an hour to charge the car completely? It would be silly to not spend 30 seconds to finish filling up a gas tank, but -- in my opinion -- it is perfectly reasonable to fill up an electric car to 50% above the necessary range and spare yourself significant waits.

Maybe a 58 minute charge at the last leg would've spared him the tow. But how could he have known? He had 125 miles to drive. He took the car to 185 miles of battery power.

<comment><USER4> That's like saying "I put just enough gas in the car to drive to the next station. I don't know how I ran out of gas early!"

There are a lot of factors in driving range. Tesla should be more conservative on their estimates, but realistically you don't fill a car just enough to get to the next station. And you definitely don't ignore low fuel warnings (even if you should have gotten a longer range.)

I'm not saying Tesla is perfect, but I do believe the NYT author wrote the article to make the car look bad to the average reader.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do we really need these third party people chipping in? Tesla has provided their side, Broder has given his responses, and even CNN has done a story taking another Model S through the same overall route.

Everybody can take in the info if they're interested and decide for themselves.

<comment><USER10> Need? No, but if, as in this case, they bring a novel argument, and do that in a coherent way, I welcome continued discussion.

Having said that, 90% of the comments in this thread repeat arguments beaten to death and beyond before.

<comment><USER9> I guess I just haven't found the discussion -- whether the linked article or the comments -- to be enlightening at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Assuming that the Model S uses the HV pack and a DC/DC to power the 12 V bus all of the time (like the Roadster), it would make sense that parking the car overnight in the cold would cause issues.

All other EVs that I know of shut off the battery contactors when the car is keyed off, and rely on a 12 V SLI battery (usually lead-acid) to support the vehicle when the power is off. The roadster did not do this, which is explained in Tesla's BMS documentation [1]. This means that any quiescent current consumed by the 12 V system will drain the main battery pack.

[1] [http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadster...](http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> Honestly, the only fact that should matter is that Broder tried to drive 60+ miles when the car told him it could only do 32. The rest is just silliness because we don't really know the actual facts, its just heresy from both sides, until both raw data logs and call logs are released, which I doubt they will. Sure, that Broder is the NYT oil guy certainly doesnt help him though, and his lack of common sense and lack of basic understanding of physics may be the nail in the coffin of this issue, imo.

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone else tired of this controversy?

<comment><USER14> I'm learning that if my product or service does something very well don't risk making it look bad by chasing a use case that isn't (today) critical to our success. As nice as that car is if I'm going to do a long road trip I'm not going to inject 45 - 60 minute for recharging stops. I'd still buy one!. Just if I needed to do a long trip it'd be a rental/plane/train/second car scenario.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Electric is all very good, but I can buy a BMW 5 series with a diesel engine in Europe today & get 81 MPG. A Prius only gets 51.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be fair, UK gas mileage numbers are always higher than US numbers, for two reasons. 1) US and UK use different gas mileage verification (we have EPA, they have...). 2) A gallon in the UK is bigger than our gallon. It is not precisely the same unit of measurement.

<comment><USER15> When you convert the gallon sizes for US, it gets 52 MPG. No major engine servicing required until over 200k miles - why is the 5 series diesel not for sale in the US, seems nuts. Top Gear claimed last year that its pretty much "the perfect car"...I want :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Personally, I'm deeply satisfied Elon Musk stood up for first principles reasoning and rejected all the niceties of socially created reality.

I've always hated Ayn Rand's writing but he's probably the closest thing to a Galt-like hero.</comment>


Show HN: High performance room-based chat server example built with Oat++ - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oatpp/example-websocket/tree/master/async-server-rooms <comment><USER2> This looks awesome! Do you have any benchmark though?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

There is the benchmark of an echo server built with oatpp ([https://oatpp.io/benchmark/websocket/5-million/](https://oatpp.io/benchmark/websocket/5-million/)).

But this room-chat server in particular I didn't test.

I think that even if its 10 times less productive compared to benchmark it is still a pretty good result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> oat++ looks great. Not run into it before. Can't wait to have a play

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

Any feedback would be appreciated!</comment></comment>


Hox Is Live Now. A Cryptocurrency-Based Stock Trading Platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.hox.com/ <comment><USER2> This doesn't look credible at all. If this isn't a straight up scam, it's a bucket shop at best.

<comment><AUTHOR> It works just like dx.exchange, if you've heard of them. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How would this work?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just like the DX.echange. [https://www.investinblockchain.com/nasdaq-stock- offering-dx-...](https://www.investinblockchain.com/nasdaq-stock-offering-dx- exchange/)

Users can purchase stocks with Tether in real-time. The in-built exchange lets you convert other assets to USDT.</comment></comment>


Reductio ad absurdum – writing a single-instruction C compiler [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmWwRmvjAE8 <comment><USER2> If anything, this video showcases the importance of doing proper bibliographic research before working on a new problem. SISC (single instruction set computer) or OISC (One Instruction Set Computer) have been in Hennessy and Patterson for dozens of years.

<comment><USER3> Except, that wasn't at all the point of this presentation...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's theoretically interesting up until the point where he starts eliminating registers and moving things to memory addresses. Main memory is _significantly_ slower to access than in-processor registers. Granted, if you are taking the mov-only computation engine to it's logical conclusion (as Domas does) you may be able to speed up the hardware architecture to compensate for these losses, but is there anything of actionable value to gain from such a process?

(i did really enjoy the talk, fwiw)

<comment><USER5> OISC (One Instruction Set Computing) is a well-known concept in theoretical computer science. It is not considered an avenue for for performance computing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer?w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer?wprov=sfti1)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The actual compiler has been discussed in the past on HN [1][2], but I thought the talk was an well structured explanation of the process, and more interesting than the compiler itself.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12372242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12372242)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10021259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10021259)

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder whether mov-oriented programming would a useful obfuscation technique for malware authors. I'd assume that typical disassemblers are not very helpful.

<comment><USER7> There is the demovfuscator, which de-obfuscates movfuscated programs reasonably well. This work was actually done by friends of mine; see their talk here: [https://recon.cx/2016/talks/"Movfuscator-Be- Gone.html](https://recon.cx/2016/talks/"Movfuscator-Be-Gone.html)

<comment><USER8> Interesting, thanks for the link!

Was just about to ask if such a project exists.

I wonder if there are other OISC architectures that are harder to 'decompile'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> More Reductio ad singulum than Reductio ad absurdum :)</comment>


Event Sourcing with PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tobyhede/event-sourcing-with-postgresql-28c5e8f211a2 <comment><USER2> See [https://github.com/jasperfx/marten](https://github.com/jasperfx/marten) for a more robust implementation.

Also this blog post is from 2016.</comment>


Judge Moves to Kill Third Round of Google v. Oracle - <AUTHOR> http://wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/damages-oracle-google/ <comment><USER2> I've only followed this case at a bit of a distance, but it seems to me that Judge William Alsup is a fantastic jurist, and very amusing at that.

<comment><USER3> In what I have seen, it looks like he has been extremely fair, and is generally not ok with bullshit from either side. For a case that could have such big implications, its refreshing to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Essentially the damages on copyright are now approaching 'statutory' damages, and not punitive damages or portions of profits from infringement. This was a risk Oracle took when going to a jury trial, and now Judge Alsup will hold them to it.

On the patents side, clearly Google has not knowingly infringed - which would be treble damages. The court has also got expert reports which talk about how much the infringement's upper bound is.

So there is not much for the jury to do in terms of determining the actual damages to be paid out, since on the one hand they are statutory damages, and on the other there are only two patents still in play, and once the jury rules on the patents, the judge can determine the damages.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Google agreed with [Judge] Alsup, but it has not officially filed a motion asking him to truncate the trial, and this means the judge is not yet in a position to rule on the matter."</comment>


How to deal with startup stress.. - <AUTHOR> http://techburner.com/2008/09/23/dealing-with-startup-stress/

<comment><USER2> I think a lot of these are true in general - rather than being specific to startups...

However, aiming for zero stress or "dealing" with stress is probably unrealistic and counterproductive.

Most people need to maintain a level that keeps you productive and engaged. I use the metaphor of your heart-rate during exercise. If you're doing a run you want it high, but in a range that you can sustain.</comment>


Bad Research as Spam - <AUTHOR> http://geomblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/bad-research-as-spam.html

<comment><USER2> Why not focus on the underlying cause of bad research and fix those? Filtering it will only make the spammers more crafty.</comment>


Trump personally pushed postmaster general to double rates on Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-personally-pushed-postmaster-general-to-double-rates-on-amazon-other-firms/2018/05/18/2b6438d2-5931-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html <comment><USER2> So many conflicts of interest with the WashingtonPost reporting on Bezos and Trump and that's before we even delve into the conflicts of interest in subjugating companies to unequal costs under the law. Idk why USPS which loses Billions per year is subsidizing Amazon which makes Billions per year and how that makes sense for we the take payers. Maybe someone can help me see what I'm missing here.

<comment><USER3> _" While we don't know the deal USPS crafted with Amazon, we know it's not losing money. A 2006 law codified profitability into law, and an independent regulatory commission that reviews their deals annually gave it a green light on March 29.

That said, it's possible that the Postal Service could be charging Amazon more for package delivery and therefore get a better deal. That still doesn't mean USPS is losing a fortune.

We rate this claim False."_

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/apr/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/apr/02/donald-trump/trump-usps-postal-service-amazon- losing-fortune/)

<comment><USER4> Did you actually comprehend what you wrote or just regurgitate it? Because you basically read me someone opining about nothing factual and then coming to a conclusion. Then you cite that conclusion as factual and start a propagation of fake or misleading news. This is literally how fake news is created and spread.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps you could direct me to _facts_ to the contrary.

Perhaps you could post under your real name instead of your latest alias dejour?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Someday Trump will no longer be President but Bezos will still be the richest man in the world (after Putin).

<comment><USER2> President of the United States of America, the most powerful civilization in the history of mankind is a far more prestigious position than the richest man since at one point that might have been the person with the most furs in a tribe. The presidential office is above the man who holds it.</comment></comment>


Six years into reporting diversity, Big Tech has made little progress - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/six-years-reporting-diversity-big-tech-has-made-little-progress-n1230461 <comment><USER2> I usually look at Google's yearly report, but apparently missed it as HN immediately flagged it into the dust. ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23087327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23087327))

The most telling details are in the data at the end, and for me/us, the intersectional tech hiring data. For white males (me), hiring dropped from 47.5% to 29.8% over five years. Somewhat surprisingly, the hiring for white females was essentially flat.

You might think that hiring for Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans benefited some from this, but no, they're essentially flat as well.

The compensatory increases were for Asians, with males doing somewhat better than women.

Given that Asians generally have higher median incomes in the US than whites, this basically meant that the sort of diversity that people usually think of when they use the word has gone absolutely nowhere at Google.

They might answer, "We can't find any disadvantaged minorities to hire for tech jobs.", which I think is a cop-out. Google has a nearly infinite amount of money and a large number of former professors and others that would make a great educational resource. If they really care about this topic, they could hire (say) 1000 minorities per year and simply train them up themselves. Straight out of college, or even high school. Certainly a cert from Google would be worth more than most college degrees.

Talk is cheap.

</comment><comment><USER3> "have seen low single-digit increases in their percentage of Black employees, according to a CNBC analysis of the annual disclosures. Amazonshows a higher increase, but those numbers include warehouse and delivery workers."

Have they looked into why? Maybe overall, they just aren't getting enough black applicants with the correct skill sets.

We should be striving for equal opportunity not equal outcomes.</comment>


The first movie GIF theater (what do u guys think?) - <AUTHOR> http://giiif.us/post/36475430486

<comment><AUTHOR> Just click and let it flow.. :)</comment>


New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/new-rfs-breakthrough-technologies <comment><USER4> 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 years away from introducing the Model S. Even then, it had a few near-death experiences. SpaceX took 200 million dollars of investment, and took four years to launch their first flight, which failed. Over the next two years, their second and third flights also failed. Neither company really showed momentum until seven to nine years after founding.

It would be nice to see a clear path from a three-month-to-demo-day minimum viable product to a breakthrough company that overturns a capital-intensive industry, but it's hard to think of good examples of this so far. At the least, it would probably require substantial development before applying to YC, and/or starting with a very limited prototype.

<comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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?

<comment><USER7> > _older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a > spouse and kids_

I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.

<comment><USER6> Sure, there is a subset of science-oriented startups that don't require founders who fit that description, but for many of the industries listed in the article to be disrupted, you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers -- ie. seasoned experts who understand the intricacies and harsh realities of their fields -- and many of them would certainly fit my description. I'm assuming that the type of startups they're looking to fund include those that try to "fix" these industries, instead of building a product that sits on the periphery -- eg. a healthcare solution to help streamline the claims process vs. an app for patients to record bowel movements.

<comment><USER8> > you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers

There are lots of these types of people in every recent YC batch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a new sheriff in town. Previously YC treated some of these things, especially "AI" (whatever that means) as third rails. They've funded an extremely broad range of companies, but if you go back and check their past investments most of the areas listed in this RFS are underrepresented. Infrastructure, food and water, biotech, robotics...YC could be reaching much higher in terms of ambition than it has in the past. This will also mean more failures, but sama is smart and tough enough to hold on through it.

But realistically, how could YC get involved with early stage startups in most of these categories? Examples like SpaceX and Tesla don't have minimum viable products. You can't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day. Creating solutions for these problems at the most rudimentary level will require months if not years of effort and significant financial backing. It's hard for two guys in a garage to build a prototype 10X battery or come up with innovative biotechnology. In order to get in on these ideas early enough for it to make sense, YC might have to start throwing caution to the wind and accept founders who have only drawings and computer models. It's just so difficult for a small group of people to have a noticeable effect on problems on this scale.

The best way to get involved with the next world changing idea might be to choose capable and intelligent people and say "I'm willing to bet on anything that you do, even if you're not sure what it is or if it changes completely tomorrow". I think YC already has a process for accepting single founders without concrete ideas and they could expand on that. Or start making changes to attract founders whose companies are farther along in their development. No matter what they do, setting big goals usually doesn't hurt. I hope that the YCombinator organization is willing to make some of the changes necessary to move closer to them.

<comment><USER10> _You can 't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day._

You can't build a database in three months and show it off on Demo Day either, but we've funded many database companies.

You don't need to have shipped by Demo Day. You just need to have achieved enough to convince investors to give you more money. What "enough" means depends on what you're building. Experienced investors know how much they can reasonably expect from each type of company in 3 + n months.

Incidentally, we have battery and AI companies in the current batch.

<comment><USER11> Most databases I see on HN are a case of take algorithm X and apply it to problem Y through interfaces Z[], which is fantastic if you have problem Y and no good solution. Infinitely scalable nosql db running on raw SSDs is fantastic, for example, but not even close to designing a theoretical spaceship.

Would or could ycombinator fund a company that could only tell you what to expect in 0.25 + n years where n>9 and Boeing, GD and ATK are all working on similar problems?

<comment><USER10> We'd fund anything that had big potential and effective founders. It might be harder to raise money after YC for something that was going to take a long time, but there are certainly some VCs who'd like an idea that was going to take a long time but had proportionately high expected value.

<comment><USER12> I'm a new poster here, I started my company with all recycled equipment.

Here is my stream of consciousness post about this. I could have thousands of words about it so this is intentionally brief. I am always trying to improve my abilities on this subject, and will discuss it more but this is what I've got right now.

Breakthrough technology innovation is fundamentally different.

This could be tough for teams which have been geared to a goal within sight.

In natural science especially, it takes a research laboratory which has to be built in advance, and this means a much further stage of bug-free completion compared to release 1.0 of software (where traction may immediately begin).

And then you get to start the pursuit of a/the breakthrough, over an unknown time-frame, only after which if you succeed, then you can begin to package and monetize it.

When you "pivot", you usually need a new or additional laboratory, and be prepared to set R&D back to square one.

Capital is needed for different things, in different ways, in different amounts, and at different times with differing terms than other high-profit or high-return operations. Compared to software engineering & marketing projects, these differences are so drastic, it's been interesting to me so I've been looking at it when I can.

My interest in capital would be for natural science breakthroughs but to outsiders most available capital only appears on the "map" due to the search for the next facebook.

I guess that's a concept where capital would be on a "map" and entities worth investing in would be good to have on their "radar".

I wouldn't want to be shot down, I would want my technology to be guided in for a safe landing. Aviation fuel, and a wonderful takeoff.

Some of these capital projects are so strong that tech capital is like Hollywood money & connections where the talent does not actually have to be that good any more. They can make a star out of anyone, and the system now tends to exclude the kinds of talent that made it great to begin with.

It would be interesting to see what that type of west coast machine could do with one of my technologies, areas of expertise, or even simple innovative ideas. This has captured my imagination for a while now, but I guess I just have an over-active imagination.

Ideas especially are not supposed to be worth anything on their own without action, but in natural science, if you are successful enough to have an actionable idea or breakthrough, and take action, it will usually be a longer- term committment than a software project, and before you have a chance to complete and/or leverage the development, most likely better ideas will come along which even if recognized as better will have to wait until later on for attention. If you are really advanced at things they don't teach in school, you will also have trouble getting your point across. Either way you end up with better ideas than anyone including yourself has had a chance to take action on or leverage in any way, so the best ideas lie dormant and unappreciated since they are just ideas and can not be worth anything compared to ones that have already been invested in.

If your life's work is geared toward breakthrough innovation in natural science, you end up with a lab like Thos. Edison and not many people can relate to that any more.

This is what has been on my mind for a couple hours now, since I first got the "RFS" in my email. I just subscribed to the Sam Altman blog not that long ago because I ran into some material of his which was inspiring.

I'm not a social networker or a software engineer, and I'm not from a silicon valley industry, so I've been trying to get realistic ideas how these kinds of companies get off to such a good start with their capital. Now all of a sudden horizons here have broadened to include natural science, this is even more inspiring.

I would expect some people would figure I'm too old for this ycombinator type stuff, but here I am now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hope someone is crazy enough for the Tall Tower project. It is the kind of project the Human Race needs to convince ourselves that we are still capable of getting Big Things done.

If you don't know about it already, it is a project jump-started in part by Neal Stephenson, to build a 15km tall tower.

[http://hieroglyph.asu.edu/project/the-tall- tower/](http://hieroglyph.asu.edu/project/the-tall-tower/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE0n_5qPmRM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE0n_5qPmRM)

<comment><USER14> What's the purpose of the tower? It seems like an incredible waste of resources.

<comment><USER15> The purpose is mainly the idea.

If such a tower were built, it would indeed be a huge waste of natural resources; but it would improve our engineering abilities.

<comment><USER16> Improve our ability to build useless, wasteful towers? No, thanks.

I'm pretty sure we can improve our engineering abilities in much more constructive, useful ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "It used to be the case that governments funded a lot of development of breakthrough technologies. The bad news is that they have mostly stopped"

That statement is very passive. There has been a shift in the past 30-35 years in public perception as to whether or not government is an agent of good (with noted problems) or if it is unfortunately necessary but the smaller it is the better we are all off. Unfortunately, in my view, those who believe in investing in basic research are losing out to those who believe the existing market structure is always superior.

I'm highly doubtful that YC or other similar groups really have the stomach for the long term investment that is necessary to make up for that loss of government backing. If your model is that waving a couple hundred million dollars around will induce a eureka moment in somebody smart, it is bound to be a failure. Real breakthroughs typically seem like breakthroughs but actually were the result of spending decades and a lot of money searching dead ends and making incremental progress.

At best it seems like YC can pick some slightly higher hanging fruit than the current model allows, but they can't afford to reach very high.

</comment><comment><USER6> 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 starting a company as a seriously viable option.

<comment><USER18> 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 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. There's a lot of downsides to DARPA, namely that everything has to have some sort of military angle, but there's a wealth of technical expertise sloshing around there.

<comment><USER19> > 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, are you willing to sacrifice returns for the equivalent of the laser or the transistor?

<comment><USER20> Speaking of the profitability of the invention of the laser, you might enjoy reading: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould)

<comment><USER19> I specifically used the laser as an example due to Mr. Gould's experience. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> SpaceX and Tesla were really possible because of the large amounts of money that Elon put into the companies, it is estimated that Elon invested $100MM into SpaceX. his extremely impressive resume was not enough to receive the level of funding to get the company off the ground (get it?)

how can a first time entrepreneur actually receive substantial investment without putting in such a large personal investment?

<comment><USER22> Was Elon's resume impressive back in 2002 when he was starting SpaceX? That was before even Tesla, so as far as I can tell back in 2002 his resume had a BS in Economics, a BS in Physics, X.com, and Paypal.

Normally that would be plenty impressive, but I don't think that is a particularly impressive resume for somebody looking to start a rocket company. The connection between Paypal and space exploration isn't exactly strong, even with an undergraduate degree in physics. I suppose he could also put _" hassled Russians for a decommissioned ICBM"_ on his resume too though. ;)

<comment><USER23> > Was Elon's resume impressive back in 2002 [..] _and Paypal_

Paypal wasn't exactly some trivial event in his life, it IPOed in early 2002 and made him (and his investors) fabulously wealthy. It was also one of the first successful IPOs in the wake of the .com bubble bursting.

Musk made ~$25M from shares that were sold in the IPO, and his remaining stake of the company (10 percent!) was worth somewhere near $150M.[1] I'd say that's a pretty impressive resume.

It's a bit easier to start a rocket company when your net worth is in the 9-digit range and you just made a bunch of investors a ton of money in your first project.

[1] - [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-935360.html](http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-935360.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't help feeling that there's just too much in this RFS and that much of it lies beyond the expertise of YC. The lack of focus means that the only message I can take away is that YC wants fewer frivolous startups. SpaceX and Tesla are fine for inspiration but they have absolutely exceptional funding - no YC company is going to have access to those opportunities. I'm all for ambition but I don't see how this RFS is realistic.

<comment><USER25> "The lack of focus means that the only message I can take away is that YC wants fewer frivolous startups."

My interpretation is that with some serious runs on the board, YC is now in a better position to have a stronger crack at bolder, hardware-heavy ideas.

Reading TechCrunch announcements for many recent YC inclusions has had me thinking "Really? That made it in?" This RFS had me quite excited for what submissions YC might encourage or nurture towards serious funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "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](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".

<comment><USER27> Check out Experiment ([http://experiment.com](http://experiment.com)).

Even in 'research', there are different types and different motivations. I believe the Science that we see today is more a reflection of the past decades' focus on commercial innovation. As opposed to the previous few centuries, where science was the product of exploration and curiosity. How we do science today will not be the same as how we do science in 10 years.

<comment><USER26> Well that's an interesting website, but honestly I think it's not possible to fund fundamental research using crowdsourcing: For example, the last group I worked in consisted of about 6 full-time researchers, 4 PhD students and about 3-6 master students / interns. The salary and infrastructure costs there probably already amount to more than 1 M$ / year. In addition, expenditures for electricity and other required materials (in our case liquid helium) amount again to several 100k$ / year. And this is just what keeps the lights on, doing actual research projects typically requires again several million dollars per project over the course of 3-5 years. To raise that amount of money through crowdsourcing seems very unrealistic and would put the scientists at the "mercy of the masses", so with all due respect I think it's not a viable idea.

There could be other interesting use cases for this kind of platform of course: I think in research education this could be a great tool to collect money for student projects at schools and universities, which in the long term will benefit science a lot by producing more scientists :) I just think that funding professional, institutionalized research is and should stay the job of the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like the ambition but a lot of Startups like this will have their roots in basic research (read: University labs). That leads to interesting dynamics (and issues) with the founding teams. e.g. Profs who have been critical in developing tech but are not jumping ship into the startup lifestyle (although continued involvement is key). I've seen this play out with some ugly stories (people got screwed) and some enlightened ones (balance was struck). Does YC have any views/experience with this?

Fwiw, I'm working on internet infrastructure (see profile)

</comment><comment><USER29> _" It used to be the case that governments funded a lot of development of breakthrough technologies. The bad news is that they have mostly stopped; the good news is that the leverage of technology is such that now small startups can do what used to take the resources of nations."_

Honest question: if small startups can now do what used to take the resources of nations, isn't there something even cooler that the resources of a nation could do? I'm not knocking what small startups can and do achieve, but in the last few years I've started feeling like the humanity is sort of giving up on big ambitions and ideals of unity, of making big breakthroughs together.

<comment><USER30> As is becoming abundantly clear, the world is run by politicians with little to no understanding or respect for science. These people, like most, believe in the "genius" theory, where an Einstein just magically appears and make a huge breakthrough once every hundred years. They don't understand that science is a slow, incremental process which happens over hundreds of years, and requires steady investment for progress to continue.

As it stands, the politicians could care less if we entered another dark age. All they care about are votes, and power.

I hope the best for this initiative at YC, but having known brilliant scientists, they are the furthest thing from entrepreneurs. They are intrinsically motivated, and don't care much for fame, money or prestige. As such, most are terrible at making sales pitches.

Sam makes it abundantly clear that there won't be another Bell Labs. Sadly, that is precisely what we need. The real breakthroughs will require extremely slow, deep thinkers which have the autonomy and time to work on very hard problems without interruption in the form of sales pitches, VC meetings, demo days, and above all a constant scramble for funding.

This [1] is the closest I've seen to a modern day Bell Labs.

1\. [http://janelia.org/](http://janelia.org/)

<comment><USER31> You would find it fascinating, illuminating, and mind changing to read David Wootton's biography of Galileo. An outstanding scientist, and a relentless hustler like you would not believe.

There are schleps involved in doing great work of all kinds. People capable of true greatness overcome them.

<comment><USER30> I am a huge fan of extroverted scientists such as Galileo and Feynman. But assuming all great thinkers are extroverted is doing scientific progress a disservice [1][2]. YC bases its model on picking winners who are excellent self-promoters. I believe there should be another way to support research for those who are not extroverted, but are extremely talented such as Perelman or Henry Cavendish.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)

2\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish)

<comment><USER32> Wozniak's genius might never have been exposed to the broader world had he not paired with a Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER30> Precisely. It seems to me insane that there are Wozniaks out there who are undiscovered. We shouldn't need to depend on a Jobs to find an introverted genius. Woz could have done wonders at a Bell Labs or equivalent. He was successful regardless due to his interests being aligned with the growing microcomputer industry at the time, but he would not have been as lucky had he been born in another era.

My point is that we need research institutions with stable funding over long periods for talented people to push the boundaries of science, without relying on the circuses of VCs and Wall St.

<comment><USER32> Okay, thanks for the clarification. Definitely agree that research institutions have an important role (alongside VCs) in fostering innovation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why should YC be involved in areas where it has no experience?

The money YC gives is minimal, so the main benefit for YC involvement is experience. If YC has nobody who has expert knowledge in biotech, it would be waste of everyones time to get involved.

Another thing is money. Most science startups need more than just people with PhD's willing to live with ramens. They need lab equipment, samples etc that cost tens and hundreds of thousands dollars.

<comment><USER34> I agree. There are other incubators with domain expertise for hardware products (Bolt, Haxlr8r, Highway1, RGA), robotics (Grishin), biotech (Harlem Biospace). These places can also offer shared facilities and lab space, which is hugely important as YC's $20k investment would barely cover, for example, an electronics lab, which could also take months to set up.

This is a noble goal and I'm glad that YC wants to invest in these sort of companies, but they need to do a lot more work to convince startups of this sort that the value proposition makes sense for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> _> We're interested in better ways for people to live somewhere nice, work together, and have easier commutes._

 _> If a company needs to raise a billion dollars of funding over the course of its life, that doesn't scare us—in fact, that's a plus._

San Francisco's city government is falling over themselves to legalize and encourage in-law units, whether they're built in basements, garages, wherever. The problem is that the permitting process is a byzantine nightmare, and working with the local construction industry is equally maddening and fraught with peril. Also, because of Prop 13, a lot of homeowners are sitting on property that's disproportionally valuable compared to their liquid assets, and so there are a lot of situations where people can't afford to build an in- law unit, even though (if they could) it would pay for itself very quickly.

Therefore, I think someone needs to create the SolarCity of SF in-law units. The company takes care of all the paperwork and even pays for all the construction. In return, they get a cut of the rent for the next 20 years.

If you take my idea and run with it, all I ask in return is that, once you hit your first billion in revenue, you put a bust of me in your headquarters' lobby.

<comment><USER36> I would love to see someone create a "marketplace for rent control rights" in housing markets currently being fucked by rent control.

The idea here would be that anyone with rent control for a certain unit would be able to put out an offer for conditions under which they would vacate the property. Once you have standing offers for all units in a building, a developer could make a bid to satisfy those rent control rights and buy the property from building owner.

People with $800 rent control in say a studio might be willing to exchange their studio apartment for a 1 bedroom in a new building within 1-mile in the regions of a city, and this new unit would come with a contract for all the same rights as rent control, but that it would be limited to that tenant and that tenant alone (it can't be "passed" on by adding people to the contract).

So lets say I'm a developer with a few properties under construction. When I see a building where all the tenants have made offers that I can meet in some way using units in my projects under construction. I crunch the numbers and make offers to each of those individuals. Once I get all the tenants to accept the offers I make, I then approach the property owner and make an offer on the property. Once I buy the property, I can then give each of those tenants a property in my other buildings and then demolish the original building and build something taller with more units. Even if I destroy the old building and build something newer with only marginally more units because of zoning laws, I would now have a new construction free of current rent control rights.

The key here is to create legal mechanisms that make rent control rights a fungible commodity that can be traded. By making rent control rights fungible, you essentially decoupled the rent control from the physical structure, you create a way for the owners of the structures to be able to use the land under that structure for its highest and best use.

Furthermore, this approach is much more amiable than Ellis Act evictions since it gives rent control renters an out that is comparable to their current situation. Even more, it gives them the opportunity to move to a larger unit in case they've outgrown their current rent control place and would like to stay in the city to raise a family (e.g. someone with a 1-bedroom can requests offers for a two bedroom place at a comparable rate relative to their current living situation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Relevant: Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires- with-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big- ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html)

Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406572](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406572)

</comment><comment><USER38> YC will need a change in their funding model if they want to fund these type of technologies. $14k to $20k is irrelevant if you need 3 years R&D and/or $5M capital to prototype; we need new metrics for funding businesses with high capital cost and/or long incubation time.

<comment><USER39> Yup. And, it can't be "idea to demo day" in 3 months for those hardware issues where iterations take weeks (or at least days) compared to hours/minutes for compile-time on software.

I love the change in focus to be more bold, real, rather than just chasing easy things like software/apps/games. But, the model must change too. I think Sam & team are up for that challenge, & will adapt, so don't think of this as a permanent shortcoming in any way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> "It used to be the case that governments funded a lot of development of breakthrough technologies. The bad news is that they have mostly stopped"

I have to plug the newest BBC In Our Time podcast on absolute zero - <USER2> basic science research (hey let's see how cold we can make this gas? Cool! Now this one?) provided refrigeration, superconductivity, superfluids, MRI scanners and more.

We cannot think VC can replace government long term funding but we can and should support VCs who are willing to go all in on long term funding and make it cool again. Politicians will go a long way on just standing next to billionaire investors for photoshoots.

</comment><comment><USER41> A distinction between actual breakthrough companies and meta-breakthrough ones would be nice. Companies that enable others to magnify their efforts (such as [https://experiment.com/](https://experiment.com/)) are different from ones that create new tech (Tesla/SpaceX). Meta companies have fuzzier goals and have longer term goals than tech ones. They are also, perhaps, more software oriented than tech ones.

</comment><comment><USER42> "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?

<comment><USER43> 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.

<comment><USER44> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> In any startup, there's broad categories of risk. One is whether it's a market risk (we have the tech to solve problems, but we don't know if anyone has this problem), or if it's a technology risk (we know this to be a problem, but we don't know if we can solve it with tech).

For the last couple of years, we've been taking existing technologies, and applying them to different markets or creating new markets. AirBnb, Uber, Homejoy, Twitter are good examples of this.

This can't last forever on any one existing tech, and so @sama's just calling for startups that are technology risks instead of market risks. Such startups may be more capital intensive, but not to the point where it's a non-starter unless you have 100 mil, like others are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER46> "We're especially interested in preventative healthcare, as this is probably the highest-leverage way to improve health. "

I think the best preventative healthcare is a population (I almost said cohort (yikes)) that is educated enough (with all that entails) to make better short term and long-term decisions for themselves, including developing the desire to become and stay healthy, to know how to weigh the risks of activities, to know how to find information for themselves and evaluate such information with a critical and logical mind. This would also go a long way in helping our political process.

Is this a tall order? You bet. Beyond horizon, but desperately needed.

</comment><comment><USER47> I would imagine that these types of startups don't work with YC's traditional valuation and round sizes. I hope they start changing the terms, especially as they now have enough data to find a better "break even" number.

For instance, I'm tackling energy economics, and doing business development alone in this industry dwarfs YC's round.

<comment><USER48> Agreed

$20,000 for 2-10% of investment isn't particularly attractive when you need to raise an enormous amount of money. Moreover, Y Combinator doesn't have partners with relevant experience in most of these markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Am I the only one who doesn't know what RFS stands for? Its not clear from AcronymFinder either.

<comment><USER50> Nope. I had to search the internet, article and finally this thread, trying to find out what it meant.

As far as I can tell, the other answer on your comment seem to be the only place on the internet where this usage of this acronym is documented.

<comment><USER51> PG might have coined the term then, the others are here: [http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html](http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> So my lab is working on treatment and vaccine candidates for early childhood infections -- some of which have severe health impacts in second and third world countries. We're primarily government funded (state and NIH), but we'd love more collaboration with our clinical counterparts, especially not in the US. Would YC back a company whose sole purpose is to interface between wetlab people and people people? I would like to setup a group that does this, but its seems infeasible without the right corporate connections.

</comment><comment><USER53> 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

<comment><USER6> I'm in medicine and interested in hearing about what you guys are making. Email is in my profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> "We're interested in ways to use the Internet to fix government"

That's what Loomio is doing: [http://boingboing.net/2014/03/19/loomio- democratic-decision-...](http://boingboing.net/2014/03/19/loomio-democratic- decision-ma.html)

Building infrastructure for citizens to self-govern. Using the internet to enable large-scale decision-making, without the need of large government.

<comment><USER55> Yes! This is heading in the right direction!

Whereas, sadly, i was shaking my head at some of this list. How could any person with the faintest clue write both these things:

> Healthcare. Healthcare in the United States is badly broken.

> Education. If we can fix education, we can eventually do everything else on > this list

Healthcare in the United States is badly broken _because your system of government is a complete mess_. The solution is not healthcare startups, or some kind of breakthrough in education, it is to adopt _the system every other civilised country on the planet uses_ , which is to make healthcare as whole a service, not a business.

Oh, and how about:

> Transportation and housing. About half of all energy is used on > transportation

We already have trains, trams, buses, and bicycles. These technologies _solve the transport problem_ and are all _at least a century old_. But the _government_ doesn't build infrastructure for these, it just keeps building physical and financial infrastructure for cars, which are probably the daftest invention in the history of civil transport. Don't get me wrong, cars are fantastic sporting and extreme environment vehicles, but by now it is abundantly clear that they have no place in everyday life.

> And housing continues to get more expensive, partially due to difficulties > in transportation.

But mostly due to the fact that existing homeowners have no financial interest in increasing the supply of housing, but, because of the way the _government 's_ power over zoning and eminent domain is beholden to their interests, do have a stranglehold on it.

But of course, fixing government is not something you can do with a startup, and it's not something Mr Altman could make much IRR off, so that's not what he's suggested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I have wanted to experiment with some ideas that would solve "real world" problems, but software has always been vastly more accessible. Maybe YC could also consider funding companies with consumer products aimed at making other fields more accessible at home. Sort of analogues to the cheap personal computer. Like the Personal Lab, Personal Biobrick Lab, Personal Fab Lab.

Another idea is just any consumer focused startup in one of the areas he focused on. For example an inexpensive solar panel kit you could buy at Walmart. Or maybe advanced hydroponics kits for people to grow some of their own food. I believe the key to really taking advantage of new technologies in an efficient way is to get them widely distributed and into the hands of individuals and families. And I think that high tech solutions to a number of traditionally highly centralized or large organization-driven areas such as energy and food production can make better distribution of those things practical and will result in not only a more efficient but also more robust and secure future for families.

<comment><USER57> > advanced hydroponics kits

We're working on it: [http://automicrofarm.com/](http://automicrofarm.com/) (well, aquaponics, not hydroponics).

<comment><USER58> At some point can I come see your work? I live in Cary, too, , and am very interested in aquaponics.

<comment><USER57> Awesome! Another Cary-ite! Email me at andrew at automicrofarm, we'll get together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This list seems like YC is (publicly, at least) expanding their vision. Previous RFS lists seemed mostly like software ideas, while this list seems more focused on problems and markets, regardless of technology.

</comment><comment><USER60> Metacomment: I like how you are copying PGs use of footnotes, but please copy his html as well and make them link back and forth.

</comment><comment><USER61> Finally! That "build something on Twitter" was irrelevant 3 years ago. Especially once Twitter implemented a system-wide ceiling which capped any new ideas user base to 100k users. I'm glad to see that you're focusing on products that aren't routed in social media. Bravo Sam.

</comment><comment><USER62> Separately this messages needs to be carried front and center on the YC homepage and become part of an outbound marketing effort and materials as well as PR.

If not how would someone who doesn't know about YC or follow it (or read this blog post on HN) know to apply if that is what they are contemplating doing?

YC has for sure tons of applicants. But there are almost certainly a large number of people out there that don't know the ropes and don't know it even exists. There is really (afaik) no widespread farm team development that feeds into YC.

</comment><comment><USER63> > Of particular interest to us are ways to use the Internet to fix > government—for example, crowdfunding social services.

I have an unannounced goal in my projects to achieve something bigger than this... to use the internet to change political systems, the structure of them and how populaces engage with them.

I think it has to be fait accompli though, already done. It will take a generation to achieve fully and putting it in a pitch deck or advertising it before it's done is only going to allow people to attack it before it's taken root.

I truly believe this is possible and achievable. But when I share the plan (in person, not on the internet) and get passionate about politics, a few are inspired and believe... and most think I'm off-the-planet crazy (though they don't think it's unachievable).

Fait accompli... I need to get it done for it to be already done.

I believe the company is going to be successful, make a huge return for investors, and change the lives of users (I've seen that first-hand already). But I also believe it can be a trojan horse for a set of ideas that can change societies and how we choose to be governed.

I'd largely got to the point where I wasn't going to consider YC, but if they're serious about this one and can be more ambitious, I might be tempted to apply.

<comment><USER64> Er... you think you're startup (microcosm), which is glorified forum software, will change "political systems, the structure of them and how populaces engage with them?"

<comment><USER63> Take an interest in anthropology and observe how communities interact and shape the environment (and systems of hierarchy and control) around them, and then consider how software can influence interactions.

Not that I'd argue with you with where we're at today. The destination may be over the horizon, but the first milestone is right in front of us and looks like we've barely moved. Which is true.

<comment><USER65> The internet does rewire the fabric of society. Facebook has a big role in modern revolutions. I'm just skeptical that the forum format has the potential to bring further material advances.

<comment><USER63> I guess a question could be asked about whether Hacker News has had any impact at all. Has it brought people together, in ways that has fostered new innovation or the creation of companies or approaches to ideas, or resulted in any political lobbying whatsoever on any front?

Almost regardless of how impact is quantified, the answer is going to be yes.

Looking at any influential forum within any given vertical, that same pattern is repeated over and over.

Impact is material and real, when enough people with a shared interest come together.

Could the impact have been more measurable if the technology that powers forums been more supportive of the users needs? Again it's hard to answer that software that more easily helps pull people together in the real (as well as in the virtual) world and strengthen those bonds within a community wouldn't have more impact than software that didn't.

Forums are impactful, and do bring about advances. But currently only in small groups and without the impact or advances being accessible to other groups. The question isn't whether this happens in forums, but whether it's possible to encourage it to happen and what may emerge if it happens more often in similar ways. Could forums be used as a testing ground for new political structures within large groups of people, could they be used to evolve and prove those structures, and could the mechanisms of self-organisation within a forum be mapped back onto the real world.

It's not as crazy a thought as you might imagine, the seed is there and the tools do not support the way people are already trying to work. The tools today hold people back from what they naturally try to do, but if the tools supported people better things could be different.

<comment><USER65> Both HN and Facebook are not regular forums (they have distinct features). If you are trying to change politics with software, perhaps a good way to approach the problem is to try solving something specific, then build the community and write the code to do precisely that. One example is gathering support for specific campaigns. I live in Bulgaria, we have active protest movement against the current government, and a lot of the coordination and debate happens on Facebook. I had a specific campaign in mind that didn't happen for legal reasons, but it would have been very interesting otherwise. Send me a mail if you want to know more.

I think it's a mistake to think about real and virtual world as separate things. We live in a single world, and the online part grows more important with time. There are bits that are quite independent from the offline part, like interacting on HN with pseudonyms. Other bits, like Facebook, are typically much closer and interconnected with our offline life. Some mobile apps are even more integrated with the real world, although they are not very social.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> This is an excellent example Brand expansion. Whether through product depth or diversification successful brands all have to do this. What's especially impressive to me is that Mr. Altman has seen that by expanding the incubator platform, to technologies that previously were not included as primary entrepreneurial drivers (AI / Urban), Mr. Altman has opened the doors to an incredible amount of work that has already been done at research institutions world wide and is ready for investor grooming. It will be interesting to see who responds, and what they can bring to the table. My guess is that it won't be the bounty that YC has seen in software, but that there will be some really interesting winners that fit the scale / mvp problem inherent in YC's process just right. Hopefully the other incubators will follow suit. The world needs more than disruptive / labor saving software. The world needs more and better technology all around.

</comment><comment><USER57> Please add this RFS to the dropdown on the application.

</comment><comment><USER67> Some ideas around transportation:

\- smart pothole patches. Currently patches barely make the road any more driveable and uneven road surfaces result in billions in economic loss due to accidents, repairs, and traffic.

\- drone machine equipment. Employ operators in the midwest in trailers while they control equipment all over the world. You'll get few accidents and utilize resources more efficiently. Put the operators in geographically advantageous locations and you can run the equipment 24/7.

\- Volunteer traffic shaping network. I figure all you need is 15-20 volunteer drivers to effectively eliminate rush hour stop and go traffic on one side of a highway by throttling throughput. Create an app to help coordinate and reward them.

<comment><USER68> re: potholes

You already have millions of internet connected (gps localized) accelerometers on the roads daily. If you could convince enough drivers to record/report that information you'd have a decent map of any rough spots.

<comment><USER67> That exists, it seems to be a popular civic hack-a-thon project[1]. I'm not too worried about identifying pot holes, I'm more interested in road construction that avoids them completely or makes them easier to fix in a better way,

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=pot+hole+detection+app](https://www.google.com/search?q=pot+hole+detection+app)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I can understand a) this will diversify their portfolio b) increase their risk negligibly c) increase their long term positive variance appreciably.

But how on earth will participating in YC help? its not some damn webapp or incrementalizable b2c/b2b product. Some things also don't have a natural exit, even if the biz outcomes are grand and/or interesting.

seriously, convince me its worth my time to apply even though I don't want investors. please. (I know many folks who did YC and are happy with it, I just don't see how it'd help in the domains I do work in.)

</comment><comment><USER70> My faith in humanity has been restored a little bit with this article. I hope more of Silicon Valley focuses on breakthrough technologies, since the rest of the world tries to rip off the valley anyway.

</comment><comment><USER71> I would assume companies applying to this RFS would be mostly in their later stages and probably already have some type of funding. A lot of these seem to require significant costs up front.

One thing that makes YC and other incubators so amazing is people who didn't grow up with a wealthy family and have financial obligations such as student loans can hack together a prototype over a weekend, apply to YC, and have almost as good of a chance of getting in as anyone else. I can totally see why YC would want to fund later stage companies though.

</comment><comment><USER72> As an active investor in the energy space, I would love to hear how Sam/YC see their model working here. The MVP and concept of early sales is something that is very difficult in this and many of the other markets they mentioned. We try with all of our companies to partner with larger organizations and generate early, profitable revenue. But it is difficult in many industries and there is still a large capital need.

That being said, would love to attend a YC non-software demo day.

</comment><comment><USER73> I can't help but feel there's a few major gaps on this list - helping reinvent financial services, and using technology to improve lives in developing economies

<comment><USER74> It's not an exhaustive list. Maybe it just shows that they feel they've funded enough realtime location-based social pizza-sharing apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'm personally very encouraged that YC is open to civic data startups. I think there's still a lot of low hanging fruit in government for hackers to solve.

</comment><comment><USER76> To build a huge, breakthrough company requires people that have or can master the road to get there. Can't just jump to that without any experience and expect to execute well. As such, I see YC reaching out to folks that would otherwise consider GSB, HBS or Haas by working with teams that have more experience, eg, putting aside some of the valley ageism.

</comment><comment><USER77> This is great news. Many colleges and universities have been focusing on these types of startups for the past 5-10 years for their own VC type competitions, and now YC is seeing the value in them too. Hopefully many others will follow suit. Rock Health has been doing this for a while and has been pretty successful in the biotech/healthcare scene.

</comment><comment><USER78> This feels like a response to the recent NASA "end of civilization" report. [http://www.ryot.org/nasa-figured-civilization-end-gonna- your...](http://www.ryot.org/nasa-figured-civilization-end-gonna-your- lifetime/608677)

</comment><comment><USER79> Bristol Space Planes fit this bill, have a talented team, and are actively seeking funding: [http://bristolspaceplanes.com/](http://bristolspaceplanes.com/)

They're trying to make space travel much cheaper with re-usable launches.

</comment><comment><USER80> My ultimate goal is to work on a project like this. For now though, I have a hard enough time coming up with _bad_ ideas. I can't imagine how I'll end up in a position where I know how to fix real problems.

</comment><comment><USER81> I thought it was interesting (and a bit funny) to see powered exoskeletons on an RFS so close to Elon Musk's companies, given the running joke about him being the real life Tony Stark.

</comment><comment> luka-birsa I'd so love to work on nuclear energy, making Thorium approchable for the masses.

Checklist: \- find a superstar physics team \- get 0.5B in funding.

Seriously, Thorium rocks. Look it up.

</comment><comment><USER40> Any chance we can form an Ideas list please folks:

My starter for ten:

"The Internet lets people around the world coordinate action" HelpYourNeighbour.com Given certain amounts of basic training and oversight, social services could outsource small amounts of care to anyone willing to help - elderly person in need of trip to doctors, local park needs trees planting. All this is kind of sort of done on adhoc basis by charities - <USER3> very inefficient and probably lacks the network effect lift that a single government approved point has.

</comment><comment><USER82> > "We are getting close to spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare; this is > unsustainable."

Really? Why should 20% be unsustainable?

<comment><USER6> Because there are other countries who are delivering high-quality healthcare for less, and our (USA) healthcare expenditure is outpacing GDP growth.

<comment><USER83> The second part, according to some economists, is absolutely fine.

There is no economic law that says the distribution of your expenses over various expenditures must stay equal. If you think about it, there can't be such a law; if it held, since nobody spent anything on electronics/flight tickets/Big Macs/etc. a century ago, you shouldn't spent a cent on them, either.

The richer we are, the less we need to spend on essentials such as food and shelter. That leaves a greater fraction of GDP for things such as healthcare. Most people will say they value health more than possessions, so what's strange about allocating more money to it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Any possibility of extending the deadline due to the new RFS?

</comment><comment><USER85> He has a very PGesque style of writing.

</comment><comment><USER86> Big point: We want to start with what we have and get to what we want.

So, how the heck to do that?

Maybe what we are doing is just using computing to automate what we have long done manually. Then we know how the heck to do that and mostly just need to program it.

Maybe we can think of a reasonably good way to do that using just intuitive heuristics and just need to program those.

But, what else can we do?

Here's an example: Suppose at a server farm we have a system and want to monitor it for any problems not seen before. Suppose the system can report 100 times a second numerical data on each of 12 variables. Suppose the server farm is relatively stable and we can collect such data for three months, let the data 'age', and be fairly sure that the system was operating 'normally' (correctly, without problems) during those three months.

Now what? In real time, how do we monitor the system? AI 'expert systems'? Been there; done that; don't think so.

And our customers are highly concerned about both detection rate and false alarm rate. The 12 variables used carefully seem to promise a good detection rate, but what the heck to do about keeping false alarm rate down? Intuitive heuristics? I don't think so. Something in 'machine learning'? I doubt it. Now what?

Okay, it's a research problem in the applied mathematics of applied probability.

Okay, what's the lesson here? The applied math now should be seen as the uniquely powerful crucial methodology for much of the progress we seek, say, in the RFS. Why? Because in a strong sense, math has by far the most powerful methodology in civilization. How? Why? Because applied math can take what we have, use that as hypotheses in mathematical/logical deductions and, with theorems and proofs, come up with mathematical consequences that are rock solid logically and give us what the heck we want, far beyond anything we ever did manually or could ever guess with intuitive heuristics.

Net, the key methodology for much of the progress we want, that is, taking what we have and getting to what we want, is some applied math, with theorems and proofs, possibly in part or largely original, and sometimes with some advanced math prerequisites. Such math promises to be one of the most important pillars for the exploitation of computing in the future, assuming that we do get such exploitation.

So far I have yet to see "applied math" mentioned on the Web site of any venture firm.

Another example? Sure: Take the data we have and get to what we want in, say, ad targeting. So, sure, there are lots of techniques for ad targeting, but what are the more powerful techniques, say, that give much more effective ad targeting, and how do we find and confirm the power of such techniques? Well, in some cases, maybe most, the best methodology will be some math such as I described.

VC, YC, SV, entrepreneurship, computing, etc. will have to take applied math quite seriously or miss out on a lot of what might have been and struggle for decades in nearly useless mud wrestling instead.

You've been warned. Be warned. You neglect applied math and you can't win and must lose compared with what is possible, big time. Did I mention that the theorems and proofs of applied math form the most powerful methodology in civilization? Believe it.

</comment><comment><USER87> Scrolled down to healthcare, and wow, clearly no domain experience. Spend another year researching and listening first.

</comment><comment><USER44> 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.

</comment><comment><USER88> > 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 temporarily, until the steam engine was put to work in the fossil fuels mining business).

<comment><USER23> > 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.

<comment><USER88> I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given.

<comment><USER23> > I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it > consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). > Conservation of energy is a given.

Technically you said that the steam engine consumes energy. Which is silly since it merely consumes coal (which contains energy).

But point taken, your meaning was _implied_ and _obvious_ but not explicit. Sorry for wasting your time with a needlessly pedantic correction that added nothing to the conversation.

In light of this new information, are you still confused about the downvotes for your initial comment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> my idea: a social network for startups who believe they are changing the world. It will be called ignoranceOfYouth.com.

In all seriousness, fixing my local animal shelter's web site has a bigger impact on this planet than 99% of Silly Valley's app lottery.

</comment><comment><USER90> Another YC Advertisement?

<comment><USER91> If you don't like it, there is a simple solution. Stop visiting a YC run website.</comment></comment>


Spore Destined to Be a Complete Flop? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/spore_destined_to_be_a_complet.php <comment><USER2> _In the end, we feel Spore appeals to those who liked the Sims._

Wow, what a harbinger of doom!

What's the opposite of "damning with faint praise"?

And I'm not sure I admire this cunning strategy of fighting "DRM" in games by astroturfing the hell out of every public review site. Seems to me that all this does is put EA in a good light while making anti-DRM activists seem like lowlife griefers, worse than Youtube commenters and iPhone App Store spammers. Is this the works of _agents provocateurs_?

<comment><USER3> My first reaction upon seeing the Amazon site was precisely that: "How immature."

I would be astonished if Spore flopped. Right now, we're seeing hardcore gamers and freeks (or freetards, or whatever they're called right now) complaining. The mass market hasn't heard a thing about Spore.

On a whim, I told a friend about Spore two days ago. Her instant reaction: "I need to uninstall The Sims 2 to get this." I think that'll be a common reaction. Spore has a big marketing campaign going on right now, but it could win the world over through word-of-mouth alone.</comment></comment>


Unlimited Detail releases new video about their game engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

<comment><USER2> I just saw this. How awesome! :)

I can't wait to see what other applications they use this for.</comment>


C Average - The American Dream? - <AUTHOR> http://abstrusegoose.com/256

<comment><USER2> This comic touches on something that's been bugging me lately: perhaps middle- class wage stagnation can be partially attributed to readily available consumer credit (credit cards, mortgages, financing for all big ticket items, etc).

It feels like easy credit removes much of the incentive to push yourself to earn more money. You can live the life you want to live (temporarily) through financing, and deal with the fallout later. I know several people who live like this - their career trajectory closely follows when they've reached their "limit" and have teetered on bankruptcy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Woot! American dream.... so so sad. Too many people are living life like this, not fun at all.</comment>


Why Google thinks we need to regulate AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/3467659a-386d-11ea-ac3c-f68c10993b04 <comment><USER2> Because when a technology is regulated it ends up benefiting monopolies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly my thoughts and historical precendent is that entrenched monopolies prefer regulatory capture over competition from the underdogs.</comment></comment>


Conclusion of the Lenovo Superfish security nightmare. (Will be updated) - <AUTHOR> https://infected.io/120/lenovos-superfish-security-nightmare

<comment><USER2> >Every banking site, shopping site etc. you're visiting is man-in-the-middled

That sounds prosecutable. Call Carmen Ortiz. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz#Prosecution_of_Aa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz#Prosecution_of_Aaron_Swartz)</comment>


Ask HN: Is there any way for an app to detect all installed apps on iOS device? - <AUTHOR>

I usually download apps by a referral from a friend. S/he says "X is so good, you should have it." and I immediately download the app. I believe friend referral is a great validation to create the initial incentive.
I see people share screenshot of their home screen to show the apps they frequently use. But it'd be nice to have an standalone app (maybe there is, I couldn't find) in which you can see all the apps that specific user is currently using. And get notified when someone you trust just downloaded the app, like "pg is just downloaded XXX."
I tried to find a solution, but I couldn't find a decent one. I think Apple does not allow to get such data from user's device. I tried to get the user's purchase history, but this also seems impossible to proceed on.
Any ideas or possible hacks to solve this problem ? I just want to brainstorm on this together.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> [https://www.ihasapp.com/](https://www.ihasapp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe a combination of custom URL schemes and iCloud?</comment>


Microsoft ADO.NET Entity Framework 4.1 Released - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/04/11/ef-4-1-released.aspx <comment><USER2> One problem with Entity Framework is lack of alternative (not MS Sql Server) database support.

We are a Microsoft shop. However recently we've had to integrate with Oracle and now MySql. Oracle has just released beta support for EF: [http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/dotnet/downloads/or...](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/dotnet/downloads/oracleefbeta-302521.html)

We have been Using Cool Storage (<http://viciproject.com/wiki/projects/coolstorage/home>) for quite some time. Honestly, It's the best ORM I've ever used. It stays out of your way and it doesn't surprise you. It's very easy to set up.

I'm surprised it hasn't gained more popularity. Cool Storage is the reason I haven't kept up on EF and the changes to ADO.NET. Bonus: it works with Oracle and other non MSFT databases. Bonus++: It's open source.

<comment><USER3> Very, uh, cool. I'll have to check out Cool Storage. How does it handle eager loading One-to-Many relationships? Such as, an Order has multiple Products and my query selects 3 Orders for a customer. Will those Products come pre- populated? A big issue I have with LinqToSQL and EF is the double/triple/n db dipping that can occur when trying to fill a complex entity.

<comment><USER2> I believe by default they are all loaded in one step. You can use the [Lazy] attribute if you want to lazy load instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> (Disclaimer: MS Employee) - this release is actually pretty cool; you can create your models as regular classes and collections (with a very small number of annotations), and EF will create a schema on-the-fly, and new up MS's version of a Sqlite3 database as soon as the first request comes in.

Really great for F/OSS web projects on the MS stack since you don't have to perform the completely asinine step #1 of contributing, "Set up a SQL Express instance..."

<comment><USER5> Not trying to bash the work that the EF team has done, but with things like not having enum support, which is something I view as so simple and trivial (even Linq-to-SQL does it), it makes the entire thing seem not so serious.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, the lack of enum support drives me nuts. Hell I wrote an ORM in the .Net 1.1 days that had it.

Still I'm glad they've released this, more "out of band" releases from Microsoft are a good thing. When frameworks and features aren't tied to Visual Studio releases mean the individual teams can iterate a lot quicker (the MVC and Silverlight teams are good examples).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's great that there are plenty of options in the ORM space. I still use Castle's Active Record for larger projects, and EF Code First for small ones. I spent about a year learning to use NHibernate via CAR, and it was time well spent.

I catch glimpses that indicate EF has most of the features in NH, but I wouldn't want to learn another ORM in depth -- there's just no value in it.</comment>


Writing a Programming Book - <AUTHOR> http://clayallsopp.com/posts/writing-a-programming-book/

<comment><USER2> Buying the book now, can't wait.</comment>


If You Want to Catch a Liar, Make Him Draw - <AUTHOR> http://neuronarrative.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/if-you-want-to-catch-a-liar-make-him-draw/ <comment><USER2> I hate stuff like this. The article is about generalizations made from a group of people. If you apply that to a single person (to "catch a liar"), you will only sometimes be correct. Catching a liar is something that you should only do when you know you are correct, and all lie detection schemes cannot do that. Sort of like our system of justice which would rather a guilty person go free that convict an innocent person. Well, in theory at least.

<comment><USER3> Expecting perfection is unreasonable - everything has a failure rate. The question is what's an acceptable percentage of false positives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how effective this will be after it gets published in mass media. I, for one, will now surely remember to use a "shoulder-surfing" perspective if I ever get into such a situation...

<comment><USER5> That is a good point. A trained criminal will probably not fall for this because they will study articles such as this to learn about what they should draw, how they should respond, etc.

Even a lie detector can probably be fooled by someone who knows how to keep themselves calm while lying.

<comment><USER6> There is no such thing as a "lie detector". It is all nonsense. And it is dangerous and harmful that people think that lie detectors are worth something.

If you want to understand why, you can read what is on <http://antipolygraph.org/>

<comment><USER5> I actually agree with you. The polygraph isn't useful. To my way of thinking people can scam it just like they could scam the drawing test. But what is even worse about the polygraph is that it will often misreport someone as lying when they told the truth.

That's why polygraph test aren't usually accepted in court in my country.

For that matter, though, I don't think any type lie detector test, polygraph, drawing, etc is really worthy of being used as court evidence. It may help law officials who suspect that someone is lying, but it isn't going to be conclusive proof no matter how you do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Except, such papers forget the power of reflexivity : after the douchebags read the paper, they will start dissimulating very cleverly, rendering the results effectively useless.

It's like that article back in the 90's which said that "gets-things- done"-type of people often folded their shirts up to their elbows, and all the mouths started imitating this.

<comment><USER8> Why will only "douchebags" have a need for these techniques?

<comment><USER9> This comment is indescribably hilarious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Using the "sketching the agent" result alone, it was possible to identify 80% of the truth tellers and 87% of the liars – results superior to most traditional interview techniques._

What a great example of the base rate fallacy. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy>

</comment><comment><USER11> hmmm... While reading through I visualized drawing the top-down perspective. Guess I'm guilty.

<comment><USER12> thats the same way I felt, I see myself as a over-view type of person at most times... I always see things from the 50k ft level.

<comment><USER5> I guess I've been using Google Earth too much. I see things from several miles up. ;)

But seriously, a good criminal would check Google Street View to see what the area looks like before the drawing test. Then they would be able to draw it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> (not directly related to this article) The more I read about the brain, the less I believe in "free will". We have a nice illusion though...

</comment><comment><USER14> People lie if truth hurts their self-esteem.</comment>


Examining Zynga's tower defense - <AUTHOR> http://www.edge-online.com/features/examining-zyngas-tower-defence <comment><USER2> This really pisses me off. While I have never played a single Zynga game (I dont have a facebook account) their business practices are so disgusting, and the fact that they are so loved by VC money - jsut makes it worse.

What a horrible role model for a company and a CEO.

These stories - plus how Pincus treats employees and his business just keep coming and Zynga is a company I have absolutely no respect for. I couldn't care less about what they do, or what they are worth.</comment>


Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence - b-man http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelligence/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Corollaries of this principle:

" * To argue against an idea honestly, you should argue against the best arguments of the strongest advocates. Arguing against weaker advocates proves nothing, because even the strongest idea will attract weak advocates."

This reminds me of a plea I made to HN participants

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555734>

to avoid ad-hominem arguments against controversial claims when facts are available to refute the claim without reference to who supports the claim. Sometimes people with mostly bad ideas have a correct opinion or two.

</comment><comment><USER2> _The least convenient path is the only valid one._

This should be a law in political discourse.

<comment><USER3> I understand what's meant by this statement, and I agree with the intentions, but it oversimplifies matters. It's not necessarily true that the next-least- convenient path is invalid.

For example, suppose I want to argue against the statement that we have been visited by poorly-hidden aliens. I _could_ go find all the compelling arguments that we have been so visited, and refute them. Alternatively, I could examine all possible poor hiding places, and demonstrate that there are no aliens in these places. I can refute the arguments, or I can disprove the conclusion.

Both of these approaches are valid. One is necessarily more convenient than the other, and thus is not the _most_ convenient.

The larger point (that refuting a poor argument is meaningless) still stands on its own, and _that_ should be a law in political discourse.

<comment><USER4> The point is that you should argue against the best theory advanced by the strongest proponent of the poorly-hidden alien crowd. _How_ you argue against that point doesn't really matter, so long as you're being intellectually honest. (no ad hominem, straw men, etc)

What the article is arguing against, is the method of dismissing the poorly- hidden alien theory, because some crackpot who advances it believes that aliens live in his bathroom drain.

One cannot simply inspect this one drain, find no evidence of extraterrestrial life and then dismiss the entire poorly-hidden alien theory.

<comment><USER3> My point is that you don't necessarily need to argue against a particular theory at all.

The entire rest of the post is pretty good; it's just that one particular part can be misleading if taken in isolation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "reversed stupidity is not intelligence" principle and its corollaries are all true, but only trivially so. In fact, many good ideas and opportunities can be found simply by reversing what stupid people are doing (intelligent people, even). Stupidity is more than falsehood. It's a certain kind of attunement to the world: conformist, short-sighted, demanding. By seeking it out and "reversing" it, you can often find new and fruitful directions to explore.

Here is a down-home example. I have a couple friends who occasionally give me advice. For them, it's probably good advice. But not for me. One day, it occurred to me to always do the opposite of whatever they said. Wonderful results! I would never have thought of some of these things without their advice.

Does this mean to run headlong against everything you hear? Of course not. That would be stupid.

</comment><comment><USER6> Do we often read that when beginning a startup, you should do the opposite of what big enbcumbant companies are doing?</comment>


Building a bootstrapped business on open source - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/business/16/5/building-bootstrapped-business-open-source <comment><USER2> I don't see how this can possibly work. Without "Word", "Excel", and especially "PowerPoint", knowledge workers can't get anything done - those are THE productivity software. None other exist.</comment>