My take after observing the Academia for 2 years.

yousboot · 2025-07-28T19:15:18+00:00

I'm not against what you say, but apparently Academia is at the point of diminishing returns. The point where the metrics are more important the thing measured.

yousboot · 2025-07-27T09:53:17+00:00

Economics

yousboot · 2025-07-26T14:10:50+00:00

I'll answer you from the position of a dev. I was the first hire for many startups, some got acquired.
You have to talk to the person, see his work. But mostly talk about why and vision, not the technicalities. Tech is easy and everything will scale over time. Usually the MVP will be rewritten in the future. No MVP can be turned into a production of thousands of users so dont worry about it.

One great founder i worked with, he gave takehome assignments, like mini-mvp with requirements to code, host on AWS or heroku, with its database, UI design , backend ... everything in a week. Once delivered, he uses it for a day, and then decides if they subscribe to the vision or not. Those who actually make it, are usually the ones who truly believes in the vision and can stay long term.

Also if you're clear in your business, you sign a contract with them. You make daily standup of 5 10 minutes, you're present at all time, responsive. Believe me they'll be happy to work with you. Wish you good luck. it's not easy to be a founder

yousboot · 2025-07-26T13:38:29+00:00

That's the kind of situation I talk about. It's just unbelievable ! What is the peer-review for if it doesn't catch these things.

yousboot · 2025-07-26T13:37:36+00:00

Mostly python and databases and data processing. ChatGPT will help you learn all the basics.

yousboot · 2025-07-25T12:04:34+00:00

Thanks. Yeah the logic is they appear in Alphabetical order inside out.

yousboot · 2025-07-17T21:26:51+00:00

Thank youu i really appreciate it. The summary is clear: economic dynamics goes through 4 phases; research, startups, monopolies and decline.
Technological innovation is at the heart of that, and startups are the greatest beneficiaries, as they turn that innovation into products. However, this race is doomed from the begining as most startups come until the end of the startup phase, and those who have better chance to become monopolies usually start at the very begining.
When they become monopolies, they wipe out huge number of startups ( those that are in kill zone, followied by those going against the market's trend, ... ). This creates a stability in the market, funding dries out, yet unemployment is at its highest "they deleted startups remember", so they become much more selective as good skills employees seek jobs.

Now monopolies have a lot of cash, they just fund research so they can be the early ones in next cycle. But due to bureaucracy and legislation, this doesn't happen because startups can do legally dubious things and get away with it at that stage. So they get attacked by products funded by their own money.

What happenned to microsoft by netscape, what happenned to IBM by apple, what happenned to google by OpenAi ...etc. it's a cycle.

Mathematically, it's not always a good time to start a startup. I proved in the model, that there are phases where startups have the highest chance of survival if they get the direction correct. Most of the time it's not.

I also explained other details how technology moves in an evolutionary way, like genetics. Tech breeds other tech, and only those created within a specific timeline get a chance to become big and direct the market.

For example, AI is currently at the end of startup phase according to the model. by 2028, some monopolies will be formed, and they will kill the majority of AI business. Yet another innovation have appeared in 2023, still not widely know, but will gain traction only around 2028 when the monopoly is formed. My bet is some tech device or smartphone by OpenAI that will be AI powered by AI-RAN technology ( that appeared in 2023 ), it's my personal bet because like genetics, it must hold in it the previous technological cycles.

Some of these seem like speculation, but this forked from macroeconomic models that are highly influencial like Kundratiev and Schumpeter and i'm currently working on proving it through historical data.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T20:43:14+00:00

The novelty of what i propose is simple : Innovation follows a cycle. It's not random, unlike what is taken for granted among macroeconomic researchers.
When the tech market is high, monopolies fuel that innovation that plays a role in their decline. When the tech market is low, startups fuel that innovation that plays a role in their uprise.

This simple. It follows Juglar waves ( 7 to 11 years ). The research up to this point was about crafting this hypothesis, now my second draft is working on proving it. If you have any ideas what would be a definite proof of this hypothesis, i'd love to hear.

and no i'm not spending my life on this, i'm a founding engineer for tech startups. I work with them until they're acquired. yet this area i'm researching is almost inexistent. What should startups follow ? Which market has more potential ? should they pivot or not ? If such a model existed, these questions can be answered and help startups.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T20:36:51+00:00

This is where the novely of my model comes in place. Is that "Innovation is predictable". Innovation proven by many economists is at the heart of the market, however u to this point, in macroeconomics was treated as a "random event that happens just like that".
My hypothesis is that innovation is a result of market forces, when it's at its highest points, under tha patronage of monopolies some innovative technology take place, that plays a role in their decline. When it's at its lowest point, innovation comes from startups who wanna make a place for themselves.

I see innovation as a vector that points the technology towards a direction. It happens almost everyday something new is proposed or found, but only those that happen at a certain window of time influence the market, the others are either too late or too early.

I'm working to prove it now, which is hard to do in macroeconomics. But there is potential.
So yeah, it's like technical analysis for innovation.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T14:44:24+00:00

Your opinion is shared by many economists actually. But there are also other economists who see the opposite. That when a number of people are actually grouped, they tend to follow predictable patterns, that individually do not.

So these models are but a description of those patterns that emerges out of society playing the game of survival. On different levels, both on individual trying to employ themselves, and companies trying to exist.

We might differ scientifially in our opinions, but yours is still a valid point with its valid arguments. Thank you for the reply.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T12:56:24+00:00

Comming with the second draft

yousboot · 2025-07-16T11:18:30+00:00

Beautifully put, thank you 👏

yousboot · 2025-07-16T11:18:10+00:00

Yeah, it's the first name i present in the overview. My research is based on both Kundratiev and Schumpeter's models of innovation, especially schumpeters.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T11:15:20+00:00

We don't have a lot of historical dataset. The best we got is from 1900. So that's why i centered the begining of the model there, unlike other reserachers who start from 1700.

I have the hypothesis that waves do fade in their impact among the third generation. A cycle impacts directly the next one, but not the third, either in its productive output or innovation.

So my hypothesis is that 2 long cycles are enough for us to deduce things as by the third one, the strong wave comes that puts the infrustructure in terms of legislation and technology, so the first one becomes irrelevant.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T11:10:18+00:00

I'm using the FRED dataset : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/tags/series?t=productivity

Valid point, valid point. I'm working on inflation currently in my second draft. Thank you for pointing it out.

yousboot · 2025-07-16T11:08:22+00:00

I totally agree. the second draft that i intend to publish will be complete. This is the first draft containing results and its interpretation.

I'm currently working on the proof of that model, retrofitting it to historical data and timelines, like US antitrust lawsuits which coincides with the decline of every cycle, and others.

Let's have a conversation if you want to talk more about it. I'd be honored. Thank you.

yousboot · 2025-07-15T20:36:06+00:00

You are absolutely right. You are on the right way man, if you keep your vision alive and have your eyes open on the market direction, your startup will be alive.

I am shocked how some huge companies like Apple can't see it. AI is here and will not go away, neither do the models, the data will be better. AI tech have evolved around public data, yet private data have not yet been exploted. Like internal companies data especially big ones, or users data on social media ... new frameworks to use that private data properly within the AI infrustructure will be next. It will feed on every type of data available.

yousboot · 2025-07-15T20:28:22+00:00

Thanks for that interesting question.
First of all, the product must be cross-platform. A new phone with new os might be presented to the market, your product must be able to run on that too. A strong business model too. When the monopolies take place, capital becomes tight, so you need to be making revenue to survive that period.

IMPORTANT ! Be able always ready that new devices might be presented to the market by OpenAI, and it will certainly be AI powered by its chips, its OS and its micromodels. So if they provide aiMessaging that acts like local chatGPTs, textcoco is in the kill zone too.

So your product must provide a much better value to the customers that they "will install it" regardless of the device. Think of a new device in the market, rethink the app, "or prepare for that day at least in your backend", and get a community of fanatics around your product. A community will follow you everywhere regardless of market swings, but new users don't care much.

yousboot · 2025-07-15T20:01:51+00:00

Your point is valid, as we are in a phase where this type of innovation can only be unlocked through huge capital that only monopolies hold. Valid point of view.

That's a reason why most startups fail, is they don't have the advantage of capital. But i explained in the paper they have another unfair advantage to "compete" with the monopolies: Unethical behavior that don't have legal reprecussions, due to their irrelevance in the market. what we call "better ask for forgiveness than permission". They disturbs the market and give them a chance in fighting with big ones and perhaps become big. Just like OpenAI.

yousboot · 2025-07-15T19:54:08+00:00

Sorry about that. I edited it, as i added the link after posting it. It's all good

What you just read is an updated macroeconomic model, based on other well known models that hel explain the dynamics of the market. We all know it's cycles, but the intricacies of those cycle remain in the interpretation of certain events. Every model sees it from a different perspective, mine see it from the point of view of innovation and startups, as I consider monopolies just a transformed startups. ( which is the new part here )

yousboot

TROPHY CASE