
New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies - StuieK
http://blog.samaltman.com/new-rfs-breakthrough-technologies
======
bfe
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.

~~~
garry
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.

~~~
kyro
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?

~~~
cbhl
> _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.

~~~
kyro
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.

~~~
argumentum
> you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers

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

------
hooande
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.

~~~
pg
_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.

~~~
steve19
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?

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
danelectro
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.

------
nakedrobot2
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)

~~~
Houshalter
What's the purpose of the tower? It seems like an incredible waste of
resources.

~~~
chriswarbo
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.

~~~
adwn
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.

------
tasty_freeze
"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.

------
kyro
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> 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?

~~~
aaronblohowiak
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)

~~~
toomuchtodo
I specifically used the laser as an example due to Mr. Gould's experience. :)

------
dsugarman
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?

~~~
Crito
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. ;)

~~~
mikeyouse
> 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)

------
jahewson
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.

~~~
prawn
"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.

------
ThePhysicist
"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".

~~~
irollboozers
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.

~~~
ThePhysicist
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.

------
amirmc
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)

------
CodeMage
_" 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.

~~~
FD3SA
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/)

~~~
DaniFong
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.

~~~
FD3SA
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)

~~~
comatose_kid
Wozniak's genius might never have been exposed to the broader world had he not
paired with a Steve Jobs.

~~~
FD3SA
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.

~~~
comatose_kid
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Definitely agree that research
institutions have an important role (alongside VCs) in fostering innovation.

------
nabla9
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.

~~~
jpwright
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.

------
raldi
_> 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.

~~~
malandrew
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).

------
jonah
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)

------
calcsam
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.

~~~
johnvschmitt
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.

------
lifeisstillgood
"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 - where
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.

------
abdullahkhalids
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.

------
cjoh
"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?

~~~
breadbox
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.

~~~
crassus
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.

------
iamwil
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.

------
chris_mahan
"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.

------
deepinsand
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.

~~~
Q6T46nT668w6i3m
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.

------
zoba
Am I the only one who doesn't know what RFS stands for? Its not clear from
AcronymFinder either.

~~~
josteink
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.

~~~
mcintyre1994
PG might have coined the term then, the others are here:
[http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html](http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html)

------
aroch
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.

------
d0m
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

~~~
kyro
I'm in medicine and interested in hearing about what you guys are making.
Email is in my profile.

------
jonlemmon
"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.

~~~
twic
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.

------
ilaksh
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.

~~~
ph0rque
> advanced hydroponics kits

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

~~~
eitally
At some point can I come see your work? I live in Cary, too, , and am very
interested in aquaponics.

~~~
ph0rque
Awesome! Another Cary-ite! Email me at andrew at automicrofarm, we'll get
together.

------
pchristensen
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.

------
jedberg
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.

------
joeblau
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.

------
larrys
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.

------
buro9
> 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.

~~~
svenkatesh
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?"

~~~
buro9
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.

~~~
ntoshev
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.

~~~
buro9
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.

~~~
ntoshev
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.

------
ChuckFrank
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.

------
ph0rque
Please add this RFS to the dropdown on the application.

------
djb_hackernews
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.

~~~
johngalt
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.

~~~
djb_hackernews
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)

------
carterschonwald
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.)

------
rpm33
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.

------
6thSigma
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.

------
dtap
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.

------
theuri
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

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

------
rmason
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.

------
midas007
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.

------
rafeed
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.

------
triptych
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)

------
JimmyM
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.

------
rpicard
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.

------
the_watcher
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.

------
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.

------
lifeisstillgood
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 - seems
very inefficient and probably lacks the network effect lift that a single
government approved point has.

------
porker
> "We are getting close to spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare; this is
> unsustainable."

Really? Why should 20% be unsustainable?

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

~~~
Someone
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?

------
cscurmudgeon
Any possibility of extending the deadline due to the new RFS?

------
sjg007
He has a very PGesque style of writing.

------
graycat
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.

------
laurenstill
Scrolled down to healthcare, and wow, clearly no domain experience. Spend
another year researching and listening first.

------
crassus
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.

------
mullingitover
> 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).

~~~
mikeyouse
> 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.

~~~
mullingitover
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.

~~~
mikeyouse
> 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?

------
silverlake
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.

------
infocollector
Another YC Advertisement?

~~~
mikeg8
If you don't like it, there is a simple solution. Stop visiting a YC run
website.

