3 ms·

I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad thin

I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad thing. So you'll scrape lots of web data, run it through your 'meaning algorithm' and then provide a search bar to search said data? So, like your idea is like Google, but it understands english sentences close to like a human would? Did I understand that correctly?

graycat 8y ago
> I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad thing. Much of the prose was intended to be funny. > So, like your idea is like Google, but it understands english sentences close to like a human would? Did I understand that correctly? I'll just stay with the description I gave.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  You could work on a better description. The ability to understand a question without getting off topic and describing things eloquently, concisely and in layman terms are necessary skills.
  - graycat 8y ago
    I gave short, concise, layman's terms, user's terms, on topic descriptions lots of places in this thread: Going for the rest of search, the 2/3rds currently served at best poorly, and based on the meaning of the content. I said all that. I'm not pitching VCs here: As I made clear, I wasted months on VCs and gave up. The short, simple, ..., description of why is that (1) they won't evaluate and, thus, won't invest in technology and (2) they want to invest in traction significant and growing rapidly and by the time I have that I won't accept an equity check or a BoD. As I wrote, the VCs don't want me now, and when they want me I won't want, need, or accept them. Nice and short. Want a shorter elevator pitch? Google and Bing are good in about 1/3rd of search. I'm going for the other 2/3rds. Elevator pitches are for investors, and I spent months sending pitches just this short, with more below, longer, varied, etc. The conclusion was simple: The first requirement for any check is traction. Many VC Web sites were deceptive on this point; as a determined entrepreneur I kept trying; but I've learned my lesson -- no role for VCs.
graycat 8y ago
I was very much "on topic" for my startup. It was not clear that you were actually asking a question or wanting an "elevator pitch". For my "abilities", your statement is patronizing and an unjustified insult. My abilities are just fine, thank you. Your guess at what my startup is doing is not good. What I am doing is much better than anything that could be or follow from your guess. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, the crucial core is some original applied math based on some advanced pure math prerequisites. It really is. That's the truth. The work is from some of my studies in my Ph.D. in pure/applied math and more studies and then my original work. This is just literally true, not hype. It's TRUE. That few startups are doing such things is not my problem but some of my opportunity. But one result is that the only people with even a shot at evaluating or understanding the core technology are well trained mathematicians. That's just true, and as such I have no better way to put it. That the startup also uses some computing does not mean that Sand Hill Road or academic computer science is qualified to evaluate or understand the technology. More generally, Sand Hill Road and academic computer science just do not cover, even significantly cover, all the technology that can use computing and be valuable for a startup. In particular, there is applied math, and that is much more broad and deep than Sand Hill Road or academic computer science; such people just have no chance of understanding the work because they don't have the prerequisites and just will not reinvent them. I've been clear on this. With some of the other news on HN now, I should insert, as I have in my more polished descriptions, that my search engine is to be "safe for work". It should also be safe for kids and be family-friendly. Yes, I'm going for the other 2/3rds of search, but the whole of search I'm considering has no porn, etc. Finding content based on meaning should be one of the best contributions to culture and civilization, and I hope the site does that. And the site stands to have some of the best protections for user privacy on the Internet: E.g., the engine does not set, read, write, or use HTTP cookies. User Internet history is not collected or used: Two users who use the site the same way at essentially the same time will get the same results. The site has nothing to do with natural language processing, the semantic Web, the interest graph, neural nets, etc. In no significant way is the technology accessible to the Sand Hill Road community, no more than to some unknown tribe deep in the Amazon; they have the same on the prerequisites -- nothing.
- anonytrary 8y ago

graycat 8y ago

> I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad thing. Much of the prose was intended to be funny. > So, like your idea is like Google, but it understands english sentences close to like a human would? Did I understand that correctly? I'll just stay with the description I gave.

anonytrary 8y ago
You could work on a better description. The ability to understand a question without getting off topic and describing things eloquently, concisely and in layman terms are necessary skills.
- graycat 8y ago
  I gave short, concise, layman's terms, user's terms, on topic descriptions lots of places in this thread: Going for the rest of search, the 2/3rds currently served at best poorly, and based on the meaning of the content. I said all that. I'm not pitching VCs here: As I made clear, I wasted months on VCs and gave up. The short, simple, ..., description of why is that (1) they won't evaluate and, thus, won't invest in technology and (2) they want to invest in traction significant and growing rapidly and by the time I have that I won't accept an equity check or a BoD. As I wrote, the VCs don't want me now, and when they want me I won't want, need, or accept them. Nice and short. Want a shorter elevator pitch? Google and Bing are good in about 1/3rd of search. I'm going for the other 2/3rds. Elevator pitches are for investors, and I spent months sending pitches just this short, with more below, longer, varied, etc. The conclusion was simple: The first requirement for any check is traction. Many VC Web sites were deceptive on this point; as a determined entrepreneur I kept trying; but I've learned my lesson -- no role for VCs.

graycat 8y ago

I was very much "on topic" for my startup. It was not clear that you were actually asking a question or wanting an "elevator pitch". For my "abilities", your statement is patronizing and an unjustified insult. My abilities are just fine, thank you. Your guess at what my startup is doing is not good. What I am doing is much better than anything that could be or follow from your guess. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, the crucial core is some original applied math based on some advanced pure math prerequisites. It really is. That's the truth. The work is from some of my studies in my Ph.D. in pure/applied math and more studies and then my original work. This is just literally true, not hype. It's TRUE. That few startups are doing such things is not my problem but some of my opportunity. But one result is that the only people with even a shot at evaluating or understanding the core technology are well trained mathematicians. That's just true, and as such I have no better way to put it. That the startup also uses some computing does not mean that Sand Hill Road or academic computer science is qualified to evaluate or understand the technology. More generally, Sand Hill Road and academic computer science just do not cover, even significantly cover, all the technology that can use computing and be valuable for a startup. In particular, there is applied math, and that is much more broad and deep than Sand Hill Road or academic computer science; such people just have no chance of understanding the work because they don't have the prerequisites and just will not reinvent them. I've been clear on this. With some of the other news on HN now, I should insert, as I have in my more polished descriptions, that my search engine is to be "safe for work". It should also be safe for kids and be family-friendly. Yes, I'm going for the other 2/3rds of search, but the whole of search I'm considering has no porn, etc. Finding content based on meaning should be one of the best contributions to culture and civilization, and I hope the site does that. And the site stands to have some of the best protections for user privacy on the Internet: E.g., the engine does not set, read, write, or use HTTP cookies. User Internet history is not collected or used: Two users who use the site the same way at essentially the same time will get the same results. The site has nothing to do with natural language processing, the semantic Web, the interest graph, neural nets, etc. In no significant way is the technology accessible to the Sand Hill Road community, no more than to some unknown tribe deep in the Amazon; they have the same on the prerequisites -- nothing.

anonytrary 8y ago