ten_fingers

My first comment on this thread was down voted to -4 quickly. That post did nothing seriously wrong on the HN rules. Since only a few users are able to down vote, that down voting had to be heavily or entirely from HN mods.

For more evidence, the down voting was well before any responding comments. That is chicken sh!t behavior from the mods.

So I was attacked, and not for anything I did wrong. Then I responded and defended myself and called names, and that was justified.

For your claim that later I violated the HN rules and, thus, engaged in childish behavior, here is a close analogy: It's against the law to hit someone on the street. But if you do hit someone, then they may hit you back just in self defense, and then they are not violating the law. All I did was to defend myself against a wildly unjustified attack.

It was the HN mods who misbehaved and started the fight, not me.

For my writing, it's clear enough and well organized, for a technical Ph.D. or anyone else. But most blog comments are just really short with little content. Many of my posts to HN have had some content.

And my main post here was of length comparable with the PG post I was responding to.

For making my posts shorter, responses on this thread have shown that even when I explain carefully, number points, give headings, give examples, provide summaries, etc., still many readers don't get it. In part the problem was mentioned by PG in his post -- people can willfully respond critically. Then, as PG mentioned, it can be good to have written enough to be able to point to the part of an original post they just didn't read.

In being so critical of me, you are just doing a playground thing of joining with the majority to form a gang to attack me as a group. It's mob behavior. The posts have not been at all thoughtful about what PG talked about and I responded about on evaluating projects and, instead, have just been gang hostility.

So why was I down voted? Not for length, some use of all caps, some use of sarcasm to try to raise interest and avoid being boring. No, I was down voted because I presumed to mention research to venture capital and, thus, rubbed the ego the wrong way on the VC community and, thus, also the HN mods.

If you don't want to read what I write, then don't.

But HN and I are done. HN is run by some nasty people, and I've had enough. PG has already indicated that he believes that HN has become too big to be easy to manage.

In particular, my UID is dead: The HN mods are angry with me, hostile, making me a target of gang hostility, and down voting just anything, e.g., my little line on the strong law of large numbers and utility functions you responded to.

The shame here is HN's. I'm leaving nothing of value.

But on leaving HN, sure, it's run by some nasty people. That's the shame of HN, YC, and PG.

I was attacked strongly for no good reason. Basically this UID was ruined because I am now an enemy of the HN mods. In the future, they wouldn't let me comment in positive terms about apple pie.

The main reason for the attack was clear: I was commenting on how venture capital could do better, and that is a sensitive subject on HN. Further, the VC community is wildly arrogant and just insists on pretending to be the smartest guys in the room. So, no way do they want public comments on their work, comments that presume to tell them better ways to do their work. And, since the venture partners are rarely significantly technical, they are insecure and defensive about their qualifications and, thus, especially fear and resent a technical Ph.D. commenting on their work. Especially the VCs don't want comments that go around them to their LPs, who now are unhappy with VC returns. So, in the end the issue is VC and HN ego.

The HN mods are hot on slapping down any commenter who fails to bow deeply enough before the VCs. So, they slapped me down. In the end, that is the shame of HN and its mods and a display of their absurd ego. I did nothing wrong but defend myself.

The world is what it is. It's too bad that HN is run by some nasty people. But, so be it. Users can read this thread and draw their own conclusions, at least while my posts are still available and not yet 'hell banned'.

I've got nothing to lose here. But HN and PG have lost, and by attacking me for no good reason they deserve to lose.

"Nothing concrete"? SURE there is. Just read what I wrote.

I said to pick an important, unsolved problem and then to do some research to find a powerful solution.

For what is 'research', get a Ph.D. from a good research university. For how to do research that yields a solution powerful for an important problem, get a job in a lab, e.g., a DoD lab, that does such work. For how to take a powerful solution to an important problem and make money with it, be an entrepreneur -- that is, write some corresponding software and start a business.

If you will lower your ego and read, you might learn something, e.g., a solution to what PG, VCs, SV, and LPs are struggling with, i.e., how to get "big wins" and how to know early on that a project has high promise of a big win.

A war story: The SSBNs were well on the way to sea, and the question of navigation was noticed. An SSBN didn't want to have to surface for navigation. So, there was inertial navigation, but something more accurate was desired. So some physics guys worked out navigation satellites. Their derivations and proposal were short. The Navy evaluated their proposal, approved it, and the project was 100% wildly successful. The lab where the work was done navigated its position to within 1 foot. The GPS system was later, by the Air Force, and better, but the original Navy system was quite good. At one point, the Navy system, to have a better means of measuring the gravitational field of the earth, wanted a satellite with no drag. Some research found one. I will leave for you just how to do that!

My point is clear, simple, rock solid, quite explicit, and very well supported: Again, yet again, this time just for you, my point from DoD research is that DoD research shows that research can find powerful solutions to important practical problems. Examples include a long list of astounding military technology from the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, sonar in all its forms, radar, now a deep and astounding field, laser guided bombs, GPS, stealth, high bypass turbo-fan engines, e.g., first for the C5-A, carbon fiber materials, CAD, originally heavily for aerospace, etc.

What is "practical" is the unique power of research to find powerful solutions to important real problems.

I omitted all my peer-reviewed, published research results. But if you want some examples of research, try the shelves of any research library.

My post, if actually read, directly addressed the main problem in PG's essay, how to evaluate projects. My solution was my three steps. That is, start with an important problem and do some research to get a powerful solution. That solution addressed PG's issue.

For how to evaluate some routine application of software for a simple case of some social, sharing, mobile app, my solution is don't try and, instead, go with projects that use original research to get powerful solutions for important problems.

If you want to know what research is, get a Ph.D. in a technical field from a good research university. If you want to know how DoD does research and applies it, then get a job in a DoD laboratory that does such work -- the DC area is surrounded by such labs from NRL, NSRDC, JHU/APL, and many more, and there are many more such labs all across the US.

You responded to my post about the law of large numbers and utility functions?

That is actually a good and appropriate observation.

Of course, some mods came along and down voted it. I doubt that they understand either the law of large number or utility functions. Of course, the law of large numbers is a crown jewel of 20th century probability theory, and utility functions are one of the better contributions of von Neumann.

For being HELL BANNED, sure, that is the shame of HN. I no longer care about HN. I've had it.

I long ago read the 'guidelines', and I've done nothing wrong. But HN is run by some arrogant, nasty people. To HELL with HN.

You are not reading and are just angry for no good reason.

And what you are saying is total nonsense.

For the venture capital asset class, average returns over the past 10 years have been poor, including on Sand Hill Road. For the returns, there are many good sources; one of these I mentioned here is an old post of Mark Suster.

Some of Suster's data shows that in the last ten years roughly half of venture partners are no longer.

Common statements are that limited partners are disappointed in the returns and that many are stopping investing in venture funds.

A few venture funds have done well and have been able to raise funds recently. The total number of venture funds able to raise a round easily now may be under 20.

For information technology venture returns, "sucks" is a fully appropriate word. But if you are a venture partner, then you and your LPs know these facts of life very well already. Also there is enough data so that most entrepreneurs know the truth, also.

The DoD evidence is rock solid and right on target: If you suppress your anger and actually read and pay attention, as I have now explained in this thread in overwhelming clarity at the level of about the fourth grade over and over and over, my point is that the DoD shows that research can yield powerful solutions to practical problems. Apparently this very simple, rock solid, overwhelmingly well supported point is just too difficult for you to understand.

To hell with this HN user ID. Mods: Vote it down to zero. Your site and your mod work SUCK. To hell with you. Use your HELL BAN tricks, etc.

Your down voting mods are chicken sh!ts who won't engage in rational discussion but just sit back, silently, and attack carefully written, helpful posts with down voting. HN is arrogant and just SUCKS.

Hell, just go ahead and delete the UID.

Users be warned: HN is run by nasty people.

You talked yourself into nonsense.

On waste in DoD, sure, but not the parts I was talking about. Some of the big waste was, say, getting AC working in Iraq and now getting Diesel fuel and jet fuel to Akrapistan. And the cost of the black oil to send a destroyer across the Pacific would really set one back.

> Also you appear not to have any idea how much waste exists in Pentagon contracting.

Nonsense. All my early career was in DoD work, mostly in research, especially in applied math. E.g., I saved a project to improve the system that keeps an SSBN at the right depth in rough seas (and, thus, got my company a nice development contract). I found a solution to a problem of global nuclear war limited to sea, apparently later sold to a place near Langley, VA. I reduced to simple Lagrangian relaxation and the Kuhn-Tucker conditions a problem in non-linear, integer, max-min for evaluating the SSBN fleet. I know my way around the DC beltway, out to Vienna, VA, down Shirley Highway, up to Howard County, etc. very well, thank you.

What I saw in DoD spending was quite efficient, amazingly so.

For academic research, it takes some effort to understand it and how it can connect with entrepreneurship. Much of academic research is too far from real products for my tastes, and I complained about that when I was a grad student and, by accident for a while, a prof.

Still, the best of academic research is by far the best stuff, including for entrepreneurship. But it is crucial to pick and choose. And how to connect from academics to entrepreneurship is not so easy to see at first glance, varies across subjects, easy in some fields of engineering, super tough in some other fields, has varied across time, especially in recent years, but, net, in many cases can be quite easy, efficient, and effective.

The idea that the academic research is just generalized abstract nonsense and Greek chicken tracks is dangerously misinformed: In simple, blunt terms, for the technical areas of research, it is funded for essentially one purpose from essentially one source. The source is Congress, and the purpose is US national security. E.g., that's where Silicon Valley came from. Along with microelectronics. And the Internet. And the last I heard, the Department of Energy funded the BSD effort at Berkeley, and Congress funds that department also mostly just for national security.

In funding this research, Congress is quite correct, amazingly so. The beginning of the movie on Nash was correct: Essentially math research won WWII. No joke.

You are correct that SV would not be able to deploy the results of the research the way the DoD often does, but you are wrong to assume that there is nothing that SV could do. First, notice that much of the best research, especially for 'information technology', is done dirt cheap, typically by one person with paper and pencil. Second, notice that now with current computing, in a major fraction of cases, such research can be deployed at shockingly low cost. Not all research has to be as expensive to deploy as the B-2 bomber or GPS satellites.

There are many ways to waste money, and for SV to waste money. And PG's essay indicated some serious struggles in project evaluation. And there are plenty of posts, e.g., by Mark Suster, that on average VC ROI over the past 10 years sucks. So, SV is wasting money now.

But there are also some ways to make money, and I gave some rock solid ideas for how, based on research.

Long ago I guessed that no one would believe me short of my having a 300 foot yacht in Long Island Sound. By then I'm not sure I'll still give a sh!t about telling people things they so much don't want to hear.

If my project is successful, I will be a billionaire, many times over. I have no desire to do that, and really don't want the down side of being that wealthy, and didn't try to pick a project that would make so darned much money, but that's just the way my project looks.

I picked a project using my Steps 1 and 2. So, in Step 1 I picked a big unsolved problem, one that nearly every Internet user, desktop to mobile, wants to have solved and that so far is at best poorly solved. Then I executed my Step 2 and drew from my background in pure and applied math, had some new ideas, wrote out some new theorems and proofs, as my education taught me very well how to do, and then wrote the corresponding software.

At this point what is left to do is not very much quite routine Web site construction and some initial data collection. The rest of the software is ready for at least initial production. I've written successful production software before and for this project had no desire to write 'prototype' software.

But what's crucial about my project is the research, just the research, or Step 2 in my post. All the rest is routine.

The main business risk is, will users like my solution. Why is there a question? Mostly because the UI and UX are different. The UI is much easier to use than anything in, say, Office, but there is still a little for users to do.

Can the solution 'scale'? Apparently. From how my software works, my software timings, and some fairly simple estimating, it appears that my software could serve the world from just 2000 square feet of standard rack space in a room of, say, 20,000 square feet. So, my software is relatively efficient. The needed scaling techniques are just the simplest ones -- lots of parallelism and redundancy and processing mostly read only data with good locality of reference.

For 'needing' Paul, really I'm not trying: I've never applied to a YC 'class' and wouldn't want to be part of one. E.g., I don't have a Mac laptop! And I'm building on Microsoft instead of Linux. And I'm writing in Visual Basic .NET instead of C#! So, my software writing doesn't 'fit in' with the YC or HN 'norms'! And, more importantly, I'm not writing just demo or prototype software. Also, I'm a one-person effort: As founder, I insist on knowing all the early software, and the way for me do to that is just to write it. Besides, I enjoy writing software.

The 'business idea', the research, and the corresponding software were all fast, fun, and easy for me. But learning enough about .NET and SQL Server administration has been a self inflicted root canal procedure bottleneck -- that maybe by now I'm mostly through.

When I get some revenue or equity funding, for more obscure details about Microsoft's software, e.g., when I get to be a big uses of Windows Server and SQL Server, I will just pick up a phone, call a Microsoft expert, and pay. My patience working through MSDN Web pages is drawing to a close. Similarly for boxes I get from Cisco.

So far I am 100% owner. Some venture funding would have helped me a little mostly just because I could have called Microsoft instead of worked through thousands of MSDN Web pages. Also a LOT of venture funding would have let me hire people for all the routine software. Net, so far being 100% owner has likely been for the best.

But in the future there may be a role for some venture funding. But it looks like the 'window' will be short: By the time I qualify for such funding, I should be close to no longer needing or willing to accept it.

But YC doesn't really do venture funding. So, I would not be looking to YC for venture funding. So, my post was not to try to get YC funding.

Instead my post was to try to help Paul with the struggles in project evaluation in his essay. Also, since SV has similar struggles, I was writing to help SV. If someone in SV wants to discuss venture funding soon, then okay, but I doubt they will.

For SV funding my project, from all I can tell there will be no problem if and only if my project is nearly far enough along that I no longer need or will accept funding!

My guess, from contacts with VCs I have had, is that to fund my project now, VCs would have to evaluate my research, which they won't do and would have a tough time doing, and then violate some rules from their limited partners.

So, really my post was to tell PG, YC, SV, VCs, and the LPs that for the few "big wins" they want, they should learn to evaluate research and, then, should do that.

Of course, the SV answer, should they ever actually think that far, would be, if the rest of the software is just a little, routine Web site construction, then that is not too much to ask before looking for equity funding. My response would be, okay, but then you risk trying to get on my airplane after it has already left the ground.

Net, then, my post was really to try to shock SV enough to get them to pay enough attention that maybe I could do them some good on one of their worst problems and not really to get funding for my project.

But I should be worth about $500 million: I helped start FedEx and saved it twice. My offer letter said I'd get stock. Later Fred Smith told me, with Mike Basch, that the amount would be $500,000, and that would be worth ballpark $500 million now. That FedEx wouldn't do what they promised in my offer letter is my loss but their shame. Ah, what the heck: If my project works, then I'll be worth more than Fred Smith anyway.

No, I never claimed that academic research and Ph.D.s have high average value.

The "value" of these two in nearly all cases is low. But, the value in particular cases is astoundingly high, totally blows away nearly everything else. What is crucial, then, as I explained very clearly, is EVALUATING the research. Then what the "value" is in most cases is irrelevant. Instead, what is relevant and crucial is the value after good results from a careful evaluation.

I didn't suggest investing in research and only suggested evaluating research that has already been done.

The US DoD has a fantastic track record both in evaluating projects to do research and in evaluating research already done.

The US research universities are also good at evaluating projects to do research and also research already done. Believe me, in technical fields, the US research community is quite good at evaluating both research proposals and completed research.

The information technology part of Silicon Valley won't even attempt to evaluate research even that is already done.

Does Silicon Valley get a lot of project proposals with such research? Likely not. But, as PG's essay explained, so far Silicon Valley nearly never gets project proposals for projects that are "big wins" and that SV can tell with good accuracy are "big wins" early on.

So, since, as in PG's essay, SV is struggling, especially in project evaluation and refuses to evaluate research, I mentioned, as in my Step 2, that research can yield powerful solutions to important problems from my Step 1 and that the US DoD does well in evaluating research. So do many other parts of our economy, e.g., essentially all of aerospace and huge fractions of all the parts of our economy involved with challenging engineering, and in these cases the evaluations are for high financial ROI.

In simplest terms, the ROI averaged across Sand Hill Road and Winter Street sucks; as PG's essay explained early project evaluations are shot in the dark; research can provide powerful solutions for important problems; research really can be evaluated with good accuracy; but SV refuses to evaluate research. As PG's essay explained, to get SV's returns up takes only a tiny number of "big wins"; well, the US DoD has done well evaluating "big wins" with high accuracy for over 70 years. So, I made a contribution, but I got attacked with heavy down voting. There are people on HN with a lot of power who don't want to hear about different ways to operate that promise to solve the problems they are struggling with. Piss poor.

> The solutions you are offering are so general that by following this high-level point of view we can solve world peace, world energy and world poverty and still make the evening tea.

Nonsense. I'm talking applied research. There's rock solid, highly developed, high quality education for that called a Ph.D. in applied physics, applied science, applied math, the mathematical sciences, and many fields of engineering. The education is for 'doing' and is fully 'practical'. The shelves of the research libraries are stuffed with peer-reviewed journals of original research with 'applied' and synonyms in the titles. These journals state strongly that they like papers with actual applications. There is nothing too "general" about what I described.

It is true that the HN community and Silicon Valley are short on Ph.D. holders in applied physics, applied science, applied math, engineering, etc. But, as I stated up front, YC is unusually well qualified in these directions.

My post made some rock solid points but was written in a way to raise 'attention' although attacked no one. Instead, I was attacked. Likely the attackers were mostly just HN mods. I've seen such before at HN: There are some strong, secret PC norms sometimes enforced here. Thus HN is nothing like free and open discussion of IDEAS.

PG's essay raised some questions about some pressing issues, and I gave some rock solid answers, and was, thus, attacked. Piss poor.

You deliberately misread or need a remedial reading course: I was clear, totally clear, crystal clear: My point was that the DoD research shows that research can be powerful for finding solutions to practical problems.

Your point does not contradict what I wrote and is hardly even relevant.

Also I was totally clear that venture capital might not want to fund research. Instead my point, my recommendation, was that venture capital should consider and evaluate research that has already been done. But in information technology, Sand Hill Road will NOT do that. A-H won't do it. Menlo won't do it. KP won't do it. Sequoia won't do it. Founders's Fund won't do it. Silicon Valley will NOT evaluate research. PERIOD. No wonder their returns suck.

For the DoD, actually, if do some arithmetic on something like ROI, their deployments and even their research look good, MUCH better than Silicon Valley.

Let's take a simple example: If read Richard Rhodes, the atomic bomb project, The Manhattan Project, cost about $3 billion. And there was a LOT of duplication and failed directions. But apparently the Bomb saved about 1 million US casualties by avoiding invading the islands of Japan. So, we're talking $3000 per casualty. We're talking a financial bargain.

Want to do some ROI calculation on, say, GPS? How about the ROI of GPS and laser guided bombs? So, roughly get one bomb to do the work of some power of 10 bombs without GPS and laser guidance.

Want to do some ROI on, say, packet communications networks, i.e., the Internet, and just for the DoD uses?

Again, yet again, my point was that DoD has shown in rock solid terms for over 70 years that research can provide astoundingly powerful solutions to important practical problems. So, in my 'algorithm', the key in Step 2 is just such research, and the DoD has shown that such research is possible.

Just what part of this simple argument is too difficult to understand?

Look, guys, I know that it's possible to dream of typing in some Java, Python, C++, etc. for a social, mobile, sharing, app and hope to get rich. But, PG's essay explained how tough it is to evaluate such work early on, and the averages along Sand Hill Road just SUCK.

But the DoD has done well in essentially my three steps for 70+ years.

Gotta tell you, in broad parts of our economy and technology, what YC and SV use as project evaluations won't pass either the giggle or sniff tests. Instead, projects in applied science and engineering receive careful, detailed evaluation early on and, when a passing grade is given, execute with high success. We're talking dams, bridges, tall buildings, airplanes, and much more. Net, the evaluation techniques of SV are back in the paper airplane days.

Come on bird brains, cough up what passes for thinking in your flock of losers.

"Losers"? Sure: As the limited partners know all too well, the returns over the past 10 years from the 'information technology' venture capital 'asset class', in highly technical terminology, just SUCK. And PG's essay provides more evidence of the struggles to make money.

Bluntly, on average, even including the big winners, the HN flock is losing. So how to pick winners is a pressing issue with good answers not yet widely implemented or known.

So, I give some answers with rock solid foundations, and you HN bird brain chickens attack with votes but no thoughts. WHAT a flock of losers.

And since only a tiny fraction of users can downvote, no doubt the down votes are from mods. WHAT a bunch of yellow, brain-dead, bird-brain, head in the sand, chickens.

More attacks. No thoughts. WHAT a flock of bird brains.

Okay, you dirty, filthy, rotten chicken bastards, ANSWER with THOUGHTS or STOP the voting attacks, you dirt bags.