Look, let's take an example. The microprocessor was invented in the 60s to be the wing controller for the F14. The F14 was rolled out in the 70s and deployed i

Look, let's take an example. The microprocessor was invented in the 60s to be the wing controller for the F14. The F14 was rolled out in the 70s and deployed in the 80s, and in service till a few years ago. So the government was funding integrated circuits for multi-decade deployment, decades before it intended them to be used and between 5-10 years before silicon valley got in on the action. Last time I checked, VC funds are 10 years, and most VCs want an investment to return within 3 years. (As Steve Blank is complaining about). By my understanding, even if somebody got seed funding for a project with an F14 level of ambition, the money would be peanuts compared to what it would take to make meaningful progress, and then the VCs would think it too far from a liquidity event to invest in anyway. How could YC invest profitably in such a venture? What am I not understanding? I think you'd need to find a source of follow-on financing that would be much longer term than either Wall Street or Sand Hill Road (again what Steve Blank is complaining about).