BS; if the project is visibly non-useless and doable, it was done many times over before and has no prospects of succeeding. nearly every startup which has suc

BS; if the project is visibly non-useless and doable, it was done many times over before and has no prospects of succeeding. nearly every startup which has succeeded MUST sound like an utter crap invented by a wannabe, scamster, or lunatic. Take Google for example: who the fuck needs YET another search engine, even as there are about 50 other ones and none of them makes any money (Yahoo does make money, but search contributes just 7% of its traffic, it is irrelevant)? Take Apple: ok so you are gonna make a computer an ordinary person could buy. What for? Why do you even need a computer at home, unless you are a computer fan? Remember the Internet has 20 years to become available to non-military outside largest universities, there are even no BBSes, and totally no usable software which would make any sense for an average person. Facebook? A social app for college students - a very narrow group of people, who have no money to monetize it upon? If i was an average person trying to tell if any of the multibillion startup success stories were 'useless' or not, i'd say almost every one of them to GTFO. My vision of what constitutes a good case of a project to fund is exactly that: great people (simply by their coding skills - people with great github accounts) who pitch a visibly BS idea. Because they must be onto something.