I love your enthusiasm so let me share some hard-won learnings with you.
In my view, entrepreneurs spend way too little time on the problem space and rather jump into the solution space very quickly (way too quickly).
The world is full of problems people accept to live with that they just don't consider important enough to solve.
That's the essence of Paul Graham's 'build what people want, not what people need' which is the founder of YC.
People will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. When interviewing them you need to understand how they solved the problem before and the actions they took to solve it. Actions speak much louder than words and you can understand how they think about solving the problem which picks up valuable contextual information as well as potential alternative solutions (competing solutions) they evaluated.
Once you understand the full context and why they do what they do, you can identify the core problem and related "jobs-to-be-done" which really helps in setting product and marketing strategy as well as positioning towards others.
You can do all this with spending very little money to be honest, you may have to put money as an incentive to get enough people to talk to.
And then last, if I were you I would find AI use-cases in mid-size companies (20-200 employees). About 80% of early-stage investor money is flowing into AI right now.
Thank you — that’s genuinely useful advice. You clearly have experience in this space, and I really appreciate the thoughtful insights. I’ll definitely share them with my team.
> People will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. When interviewing them you need to understand how they solved the problem before and the actions they took to solve it. Actions speak much louder than words and you can understand how they think about solving the problem which picks up valuable contextual information as well as potential alternative solutions (competing solutions) they evaluated.
We tried to apply some of that in the limited time we had — for instance, we avoided presenting the idea directly and focused on questions that revealed whether people had faced similar problems before.
> And then last, if I were you I would find AI use-cases in mid-size companies (20-200 employees). About 80% of early-stage investor money is flowing into AI right now.
We're not actively seeking investment at the moment, but your point about AI in mid-size companies is very relevant — it's something we’ll keep in mind as we evolve.
Friends is a big word, the EU has a vested interest in getting cheap gas from as many sources as possible at this point and a direct oil and gas pipeline to Europe would definitely be helpful.
Russian presence in Syria prevented this but they're gone now.
In the future we can balance Russian cheap gas with Qatari cheap gas to not be held hostage by either party.
It would be a mistake to build dependencies on China when it's possible to avoid having dependencies at all.
It would be a mistake to work with China for several reasons.
The EU needs to be in a position where it can decide what is best for Europeans and not be strong-armed or overly dependent on allies that clearly don't share the same concern.
As a general principle, if you are hurt by _words_ then the problem is you and not the other person.
Those prigs exist but they're just emotionally immature and adopt a victim-cause as a means to express their frustration. If somebody is looking for a fight, if you give him a gun he's going to use it.
If you want to kill it forever, you should probably teach emotional intelligence in high school.
Hey, I'm commenting on this post to not disrupt the active H-1B thread but from what you mentioned there it seems like you could be a good fit.
Per introduction, I am an experienced entrepreneur who previously built the largest fintech lender in Spain (2B eur lended) and I am now looking for a team to build a defensetech with in the US to build artillery-launched drones.
I already have investor interest lined up.
Would you be open to have a chat?
Smart ammunitions are held hostage by electronics vendors founded 100 years ago.
We are working on a G-hardened System-on-chip that can survive being fired from artillery and naval guns.
It's hard, challenging and you probably have no idea where to start but that's ok.
We'll figure it out.
We are particularly keen on people that have experience with continuous integration tools like renode.io or equivalent software test automation platforms (e.g. model-based design).
Co-founder level equity possible for the right person.
Hit me up at nicolas@adronaline.com if you're interested.
I have interested on SoC hardware design. I'm good in problem solving and research a new things and good in finding new things. I'll share my CV to this mail address kindly refer my profile. muruganvel098@gmail.com
This suffers from the same objections as all carbon sequestration "solutions" - why would anyone dump expensive fertilizer into the ocean? How would they haul it there without burning more fuel? How would they make the fertilizer?
Carbon sequestration is energy negative. The global population of Earth is hurling boulders off a cliff - hoping that a madman Sisyphus decides to lug them back up (to be hurled down again) is not a solution to anything.
Please believe me when I say I mean 'Citation?' in an excited, please let this not be too good to be true, I haven't heard this great news and deeply desire another (a?) strong contender in the direct carbon capture space - especially aqueous - capture, way.
Ok fair, but in that case isn't it missing the words "I think" prepended to the factual assertion.
As in: I think it's missing the words "I think" from that statement. (Which is educated speculation on the statement that has yet to be rigorously explored)
There's a ton of literature on the ideas and the caveats. Perhaps https://web.whoi.edu/ocb-fert/scientific-literature/ will be a useful, although somewhat dated and limited, introduction to the fertilization idea.
Another idea is to alter the pH of the ocean.
These topics are not at all simple. They are active areas of research in labs across the world. They have been since the 1980s, and I would not say the solutions are around the corner.
A somewhat new feature in all of this is that venture capitalists are getting into the picture, hoping to make money from developing solutions to the climate-warming problem. Their influence makes it a bit hard to judge what methods might work best. And experts in the field have a right to be ambivalent about receiving research funding from groups that benefit from hiding successful results until patents can be established.
In my view, entrepreneurs spend way too little time on the problem space and rather jump into the solution space very quickly (way too quickly).
The world is full of problems people accept to live with that they just don't consider important enough to solve.
That's the essence of Paul Graham's 'build what people want, not what people need' which is the founder of YC.
People will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. When interviewing them you need to understand how they solved the problem before and the actions they took to solve it. Actions speak much louder than words and you can understand how they think about solving the problem which picks up valuable contextual information as well as potential alternative solutions (competing solutions) they evaluated.
Once you understand the full context and why they do what they do, you can identify the core problem and related "jobs-to-be-done" which really helps in setting product and marketing strategy as well as positioning towards others.
You can do all this with spending very little money to be honest, you may have to put money as an incentive to get enough people to talk to.
And then last, if I were you I would find AI use-cases in mid-size companies (20-200 employees). About 80% of early-stage investor money is flowing into AI right now.