I'm a new poster here, I started my company with all recycled equipment.

Here is my stream of consciousness post about this.
I could have thousands of words about it so this is intentionally brief.
I am always trying to improve my abilities on this subject,
and will discuss it more but this is what I've got right now.

Breakthrough technology innovation is fundamentally different.

This could be tough for teams which have been geared to a goal within sight.

In natural science especially,
it takes a research laboratory which has to be built in advance,
and this means a much further stage of bug-free completion compared to release 1.0 of
software (where traction may immediately begin).

And then you get to start the pursuit of a/the breakthrough,
over an unknown time-frame,
only after which if you succeed, then you can begin to package and monetize it.

When you "pivot", you usually need a new or additional laboratory,
and be prepared to set R&D back to square one.

Capital is needed for different things, in different ways, in different amounts,
and at different times with differing terms than other high-profit or
high-return operations.
Compared to software engineering & marketing projects, these differences are so
drastic, it's been interesting to me so I've been looking at it when I can.

My interest in capital would be for natural science breakthroughs but
to outsiders most available capital only appears on the "map" due to the search for
the next facebook.

I guess that's a concept where capital would be on a "map" and entities
worth investing in would be good to have on their "radar".

I wouldn't want to be shot down, I would want my technology to be guided in for a safe landing.
Aviation fuel, and a wonderful takeoff.

Some of these capital projects are so strong that tech capital is like Hollywood
money & connections where the talent does not actually have to be that good any more.
They can make a star out of anyone, and the system now tends to exclude the kinds
of talent that made it great to begin with.

It would be interesting to see what that type of west coast machine could do with one of my
technologies, areas of expertise, or even simple innovative ideas.
This has captured my imagination for a while now, but I guess I just have an over-active
imagination.

Ideas especially are not supposed to be worth anything on their own without action,
but in natural science, if you are successful enough to have an actionable idea
or breakthrough, and take action, it will usually be a longer-term committment than
a software project, and before you have a chance to complete and/or leverage the
development, most likely better ideas will come along which even if recognized as better will
have to wait until later on for attention.
If you are really advanced at things they don't teach in school, you will also have
trouble getting your point across.
Either way you end up with better ideas than anyone including yourself has
had a chance to take action on or leverage in any way,
so the best ideas lie dormant and unappreciated since they are just ideas and
can not be worth anything compared to ones that have already been invested in.

If your life's work is geared toward breakthrough innovation in natural science,
you end up with a lab like Thos. Edison and not many people can relate to that any more.

This is what has been on my mind for a couple hours now,
since I first got the "RFS" in my email.
I just subscribed to the Sam Altman blog not that long ago because
I ran into some material of his which was inspiring.

I'm not a social networker or a software engineer, and I'm not from a silicon valley industry,
so I've been trying to get realistic ideas how these kinds of companies get
off to such a good start with their capital.
Now all of a sudden horizons here have broadened to include natural science,
this is even more inspiring.

I would expect some people would figure I'm too old for this ycombinator
type stuff, but here I am now.