4 ms·

you're getting downvoted because 1 you're rambling 2 this isn't the time or place for this.

graycat 9y ago
I'm not "rambling" at all. Instead very much I'm responding quite directly to the OP. I'm responding point by point on just what the OP concentrated on, the business idea, what constitutes a promising business idea, the founders, technical founders who could write code, the code, minimum viable product, the "team" of founders and the point about a sole founder, and venture funding, in particular, YC funding. Those issues were all central in the OP and also in what I wrote. So, I'm right on topic. And I went point by point and didn't "ramble". And to be more clear, I illustrated with a project I know well, my own. Then from my example, readers who are a natural audience for the OP can see some likely important points: (1) Getting a promising business idea can be less obscure than suggested in the OP. (2) Getting a "team" that can do the work is easier than suggested in the OP, e.g., some sole, solo founders can do all the work from the business idea through the code ready to go live. (3) Venture funding and/or YC funding can be much more difficult to obtain than suggested in the OP. Then I made the point that the OP didn't say much about the "operations" from the running code ready for production to good earnings -- there's more to say there, too. And for the potential of a sole, solo founder, I gave some arguments and examples why that is not unreasonable. You noticed how what I wrote was really a direct response to the OP, right? Apparently not. What you wrote about my post makes no sense. So, your concerns must be elsewhere, and a strong suspicion has to be that you do have some bitter reactions to what I wrote but not like anything you wrote. So, you don't know me at all but want to mount a personal attack on me. Okay, I understand.
graycat 9y ago
You don't know what the heck you are thinking or writing about. Somehow you've got some emotions you can't control and that overwhelm any rationality you have. I did NOTHING wrong. Instead I made a contribution to the OP, one that stands to be good for the intended audience of the OP. You are very much out of line and trying to start a fight. If you really were unable to read with understanding what I wrote, then maybe a local community college will be able to give you a remedial course in reading comprehension. I used my startup as an example to address the main points in the OP; what I wrote stands to be really good for the target audience of the OP; what I wrote certainly would have been good for me early in my startup work. Net, it's getting obvious: You resent my startup. If you are able to read what I wrote, then you need to calm down, apologize to me and the rest of HN, and then severely restrict your future posts. In particular, you need to stop trying to pick fights.

I'm not "rambling" at all. Instead very much I'm responding quite directly to the OP. I'm responding point by point on just what the OP concentrated on, the business idea, what constitutes a promising business idea, the founders, technical founders who could write code, the code, minimum viable product, the "team" of founders and the point about a sole founder, and venture funding, in particular, YC funding. Those issues were all central in the OP and also in what I wrote. So, I'm right on topic. And I went point by point and didn't "ramble". And to be more clear, I illustrated with a project I know well, my own. Then from my example, readers who are a natural audience for the OP can see some likely important points: (1) Getting a promising business idea can be less obscure than suggested in the OP. (2) Getting a "team" that can do the work is easier than suggested in the OP, e.g., some sole, solo founders can do all the work from the business idea through the code ready to go live. (3) Venture funding and/or YC funding can be much more difficult to obtain than suggested in the OP. Then I made the point that the OP didn't say much about the "operations" from the running code ready for production to good earnings -- there's more to say there, too. And for the potential of a sole, solo founder, I gave some arguments and examples why that is not unreasonable. You noticed how what I wrote was really a direct response to the OP, right? Apparently not. What you wrote about my post makes no sense. So, your concerns must be elsewhere, and a strong suspicion has to be that you do have some bitter reactions to what I wrote but not like anything you wrote. So, you don't know me at all but want to mount a personal attack on me. Okay, I understand.

graycat 9y ago

You don't know what the heck you are thinking or writing about. Somehow you've got some emotions you can't control and that overwhelm any rationality you have. I did NOTHING wrong. Instead I made a contribution to the OP, one that stands to be good for the intended audience of the OP. You are very much out of line and trying to start a fight. If you really were unable to read with understanding what I wrote, then maybe a local community college will be able to give you a remedial course in reading comprehension. I used my startup as an example to address the main points in the OP; what I wrote stands to be really good for the target audience of the OP; what I wrote certainly would have been good for me early in my startup work. Net, it's getting obvious: You resent my startup. If you are able to read what I wrote, then you need to calm down, apologize to me and the rest of HN, and then severely restrict your future posts. In particular, you need to stop trying to pick fights.