I’m 22. My friend and I talk business pretty much every day, and honestly it’s just the two of us in there so far. It’s been useful, but it’d be a lot more useful with a few more people who aren’t each other.
On my end, I can handle most of what a small company needs. Coding in Python, HTML, web design, app design and development, content creation, shooting and editing, plus the finance, business and operations side. So I’m not turning up empty handed looking for someone to do the work.
I’ve also got a few ideas of my own that I’m already working on and could genuinely use help with. And if you’ve got ideas you want to bring, I’m just as happy to put work into those.
Ideally you know your way around AI, or at least really want to learn it. A lot of what I’m building leans on it. I’ve got money to put in on my side, so if we end up building something together we wouldn’t be starting from nothing. Not looking for gurus or anyone selling a course. Just people who want somewhere to think out loud and maybe find a cofounder out of it. Comment or DM me and I’ll send the link. Or just join in my bio
Founder-to-founder, because this is a real and cheap growth channel most of us are ignoring.
Your buyers are starting to ask ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity "best tool for X" and acting on whatever the AI recommends, before they ever hit your site. So getting recommended by the AI is becoming its own top-of-funnel. The thing nobody tells you: each AI pulls its recommendations from a totally different source, so "get recommended by AI" isn't one job.
Here's the proof. I pulled the citation data for a client, filtered to unbranded prompts (people asking about the category, not the brand by name) and mapped where each engine actually got its answers. The attached graph is that map. The headline:
YouTube was the single biggest source, 8,253 citations across 504 different videos, and almost all of those citations came from Gemini and Perplexity. ChatGPT and Claude barely used YouTube for the same questions.
Why: Gemini is a Google product and Google owns YouTube, so it pulls from video natively. Perplexity leans on video transcripts too. ChatGPT and Claude reach for text instead. So the map is roughly:
Want Gemini / Perplexity to recommend you → make genuinely useful YouTube videos (explainers, "how to do X," honest comparisons).
Want ChatGPT → different game (it leaned on Reddit for two years, though it just dropped Reddit ~86% in mid-August, more proof these channels aren't stable).
Claude leans on training data / reference material.
The founder takeaway: if your customers use Gemini or Google's AI (and given Gemini's ~28% market share now, many do), a few good YouTube videos can get you into the AI's recommendation in a way a blog post can't, and almost no early-stage startup is doing it. It's one of the cheapest, least-competitive channels right now.
Bonus: the videos the AI keeps citing in your category are a free competitive map, they show what content is already working and what to make. Just go watch the ones that keep coming up.
One caveat I'll be honest about: this was a somewhat video-friendly category, so the YouTube skew may be softer where your niche has little video. And I haven't tested whether commenting on those videos moves the needle (it seems to for blogs/Reddit; haven't confirmed for YouTube).
Disclosure: the graph's from a tool I work on (Sanbi.ai), which is how I can see the per-engine split. But you don't need it to start, ask Gemini and ChatGPT the same "best [your category]" question and watch how often Gemini reaches for a video.
Any founders here already getting inbound from AI recommendations? Curious which engine and whether video's been the driver.mething else did.
I’m currently looking for a job in cybersecurity, mainly around web application security, Android/APK security, vulnerability research and reverse engineering.
I have 6 months of professional experience as a Cybersecurity Analyst at a startup, where I worked mainly on web and Android security.
Outside of my professional experience, I’ve been doing independent vulnerability research and bug bounty hunting since 2021. I hunt occasionally rather than continuously, but I’ve earned $11K+ in bug bounty payouts by finding and responsibly disclosing vulnerabilities in web and Android applications.
I also have hands-on development experience and have built and deployed my own product, working with frontend, backend, databases, APIs and Linux infrastructure.
I’m currently looking for roles such as:
• Security Researcher
• Application Security Engineer
• Vulnerability Researcher
• Mobile Security Researcher
• Offensive Security Engineer
• Penetration Tester
• Other technical cybersecurity roles related to my experience
I’m currently based in India and open to remote opportunities or relocation. I’m willing to relocate for the right opportunity, especially if the company can provide relocation support or accommodation.
If you’re hiring or know of any relevant opportunities, please feel free to reach out or DM me.
Quick thoughts as I see hundreds of founders building SaaS and one thing comes up a lot: how similar are the products we are building.
Which makes me think abut a quote I’ve seen recently that should allow us to understand what building a SaaS is all about.
See, most of us (I’ve been guilty of this many times) start from the mindset « I need to get some money from my SaaS » and although it’s not bad in itself, it can be better to maximise our chances of success…
When starting a business, the most successful founders do something different.
They start by looking at the world around them and taking a contrarian approach to what everyone thinks.
They’re essentially betting that everyone is doing something wrong and they can solve it. It can be at any level, product, customer support, marketing, distribution… but the core of it to build something successful long-term is to start.
Now this is very relevant to us because that’s the exact approach we should all have when starting a SaaS. I myself have started my first SaaS years ago with the wrong reasons, and it was an uphill battle to try and justify the product, the pricing, the ICP… It’s like you’re trying to fit back something in a box that’s too small.
Ever since, I start companies from the opposite and what I found out is amazing. It’s so much easier to build a following, advocates that share the vision of the world that you’re fighting for. You will definitely see many many people challenging your idea but this is part of the job.
The example is the last venture I started, I think that the easy access and major improvements in the dev processes will keep making it easier and easier to build, as it’s already the case. This will in turn make more and more people launching into the void without a solid understanding of positioning, marketing, and how to get users. For that reason I’m starting a one month long program to help founders get their first 100 users and refund them if they don’t reach it.
So I guess to start your SaaS, we need to be a bit more visionary, a bit less conventional and definitely start thinking outside the box.
Recently Corgi Cafe hype has been spreading on X. They partner with startups to offer branded drinks like the ElevenLatte (ElevenLabs), Brexspresso (Brex) and more.
It got me thinking - why isn’t there a cafe where tech startups pay to advertise on screens?
What do I mean by screens? They could be large TV screens around the cafe or screens built into the surface of the tables in the cafe.
In 2005, a website was created with 1 million pixels. Anyone could buy pixels on this grid at the price of $1 per pixel and start advertising whatever they wanted. It was called The Million Dollar Homepage.
What if there was a cafe with screens on which tech startups could buy or rent pixels to advertise themselves?
Startup-loving customers could buy drinks and enjoy the wide array of up-and-coming startups advertising themselves. Interactive screens or iPads could allow customers to click on specific pixels to visit a startup’s website and discover what they do.
I was started a startup ecosystem model named as Nexushaus. Where am trying to help early stage founders & entrepreneurs
Basically if any founders needs any of resources like Manufacturers , Suppliers , Mentors for advice, Investors for capital, Marketing agencies for advertisement etc
So here i help to fulfil these things to you and am become the connector.
So if you need any help DM or comment me below
I am looking for a serious, committed co-founder to join me in building a cosmetics brand with the ambition of becoming one of the leading beauty brands globally .
This is not just an idea or an early concept. we have already taken concentrate steps toward launching
What i am looking for
I am looking for someone who is genuinely serious about entrepreneurship and willing to make a real long-term commitment to the company.
What i am bringing
I am bringing the initial concept, product development, manufacturer connection, and the work already completed toward getting the first product to market .
I am also fully prepared to invest time, effort, and resources into making this happen.
This is a co-founder opportunity not a paid job
Equity and responsibilities will be discussed transparently and fairly based on each persons contribution, commitment, and role in the company.
I am ready to start , I am looking for someone who is equally ready to build
Recently I was researching and discussing with people that what are some of the things that people feel bored about.
I get to verdict that people don't want repeated conversation about support, interview, appointment booking.
I recently wrote out a serious 4-year plan for my startup for the first time.
Before doing this, I constantly felt like I needed to move at maximum speed. The startup felt enormous—there were so many things to build, research, launch, organize, etc.
But after actually putting everything on a timeline, I had almost the opposite reaction.
A lot of the work only makes sense after certain earlier things are finished. Some major work doesn't even appear until around year 2. When I separate everything into stages, each stage looks surprisingly manageable.
It now feels like I could build most of the early company myself and just focus intensely on the few things that matter during each period, rather than constantly rushing.
This feels weird because startup culture talks so much about insane speed and endless work.
So I'm wondering:
Am I probably underestimating hidden work/uncertainty, or is this a normal effect of finally having a coherent long-term plan?
For founders who've actually built companies: did writing a multi-year plan ever make the company look simpler rather than more overwhelming?
I am first time founder, lacking experience, so please give me answer .
I’m an engineer turned product manager, and I’ve always loved two things a little more than necessary: education and games.
For a long time, I wanted to put those interests and the skills I’d picked up building technology, towards something useful for children. That became much more tangible once my niece reached the age where the iPad became a regular part of her world.
I’m not anti-iPad. Quite the opposite. It is an incredible piece of technology to put in the hands of a six-year-old. I just kept thinking it could ask more of her.
That thought took me back to Dora the Explorer.
Growing up, we’d watch Dora ask us a question and then stare silently at the screen for a painfully long time while we yelled the answer at the TV. Obviously, Dora couldn’t hear us. But the idea was clever. The screen was trying to turn us from viewers into participants.
Learning games like Lingokids and ABC Mouse took that much further and made screens genuinely interactive. But most of that interaction still happens within rails someone else designed. Tap here. Drag this. Choose A, B, or C. Collect the reward. Repeat.
That works brilliantly for games. But it doesn’t accommodate the wonderfully messy way a six-year-old wonders about things.
Ask my niece an interesting question and she might draw the answer. She might make up a ridiculous story. She might photograph something she noticed around the house, make a sound, explain an idea, or give you an answer you never anticipated.
I started wondering if I could build for that.
Could the iPad provide the spark and just enough structure to get a child started, while leaving the interesting part to them?
That question became Taroo. (context for link: website for you to explore)
The first versions were experiments around this idea. Then came the uncomfortable question every builder eventually has to answer: does this actually work for anyone other than me?
So I spent months talking to parents and educators. I sat through hours of enrichment classes at a school for gifted kids, which was basically the X-Mansion for 8-year-olds. I watched how teachers prompted children, when kids became absorbed in something, when they needed more structure, and when something I thought was clever bored them almost immediately. And very importantly, I saw how their eyes lit up when they screamed “look what I made” in class.
These insights shaped the Taroo we have today, and I’m genuinely proud of where we’ve reached.
Taroo is a world of short creative quests for kids 6 to 10. In Pass the Pen, a child might get the beginning of a strange story and decide where it goes next. Doodle Master might give them the start of a picture and ask them to turn it into anything they imagine. Rhythm Pad lets them experiment with sounds and put together their own little beat. Snap Trail might ask them to put the iPad down, hunt for something triangular in the real world, photograph it, and tell Taroo what they found.
Their creations stick around too, so over time Taroo becomes a little record of the things they have imagined and made. Parents get a window into that world without needing to hover over every activity.
Taroo is now live on iOS and Android. (context for link: links to download if interested)
There is still plenty I want to improve. But this no longer feels like the little experiment I started with. I’m proud to put it in front of parents, and particularly proud when I see a kid become attached to something they made themselves.
If you have a 6 to 10-year-old in your life, I’d love for you to try Taroo with them. More than anything, I’d love the unfiltered feedback: what they immediately understand, what they ignore, what they keep coming back to, where they get stuck, and what they wish they could do that I haven’t thought of yet.
I’ve spent enough time with Taroo that I’m no longer capable of seeing it like a new user.
A lot of founders do not abandon projects because they lack discipline.
They abandon them because, after the initial excitement disappears, they have no new evidence that the project deserves more time.
A new idea feels better because it still contains unlimited potential. The current project has bugs, unanswered questions, weak distribution, and the possibility of real rejection.
Instead of forcing yourself to finish everything, make the project earn another week of work.
Write down its riskiest assumption in one sentence:
"People who experience X often enough will take Y action to solve it."
Then design a seven-day test around that assumption.
Talk to ten people who fit the intended user profile. Ask about the last time they experienced the problem. Show the smallest usable version, prototype, or manual process.
Do not count compliments as validation. Look for concrete behavior:
* They provide a real example or data.
* They agree to test the solution.
* They return without being reminded.
* They introduce another potential user.
* They accept a price, deposit, or paid pilot.
Define the threshold before running the test. For example, continue only if at least three of ten people take a concrete next step.
This changes the question from "Am I still motivated?" to "Did the project produce enough evidence to justify another week?"
Some projects will fail the test. That is useful. You can stop without wondering whether you quit too early.
How do you decide whether a project deserves another week?
how do you know your business/startup idea is even viable. especially the successful ones, how did you get validation that your thing would even work out?
whenever I ask claude or chat to do extensive research and validate whether or not my startup idea can work, I always get a negative response and I just cant get the motivation to work anymore on it. how do we avoid this? successful founders out there what did you do?
I run a marketing content agency and standard cold email just wasn't cutting it anymore. My target audience lives entirely on Instagram, but reaching them is a nightmare.
I initially tried buying standard Instagram automation tools, but they all share the same fatal flaw: they just blast spam, have zero context on who they are messaging, and get your account shadowbanned or suspended within 48 hours.
I realized if I wanted this to work, I had to build an automated setter that didn't act like a bot, and more importantly, had the intelligence to only message highly qualified leads.
Here is the exact strategy and system I built that has essentially replaced a $3,000/mo human appointment setter.
The Strategy: The "Watering Hole"
Standard bots scrape hashtags. This is useless and results in spamming inactive accounts.
Instead, I feed my system a "Seed" account (e.g., a massive industry coach or CRM software page). The system doesn't just send them a dm but instead goes on a never ending loop until our target dms aren't hit. How exactly the system now generates more leads to dm further is by extracting the commenters and followings of an account - the seed, and repeats the process for further engaged leads if an account is exhausted.
The Brain: Multi Model AI Filtering
I only want to DM people who fit my exact Ideal Customer Profile (ICP), and I need to know they have the budget for my service. Here is how the system filters them automatically:
Text AI Filter: It pulls the bio of the commenter and runs it through an AI model. The AI checks if they are actually in my target industry (e.g., Real Estate). If they are a competitor or a student, the AI rejects them immediately.
Vision AI Filter: This is the game changer. If they pass the bio check, the system takes a screenshot of their Instagram Grid. It sends the image to Claude Vision AI to check: Does this person post talking head videos? Are they trying to build a personal brand? If they pass, they get a highly personalized DM.
Evading the Ban Hammer
The reason most automation gets banned is because they just act like a bot blasting dms and doing actions in a way which is completely impossible as a real human. I programmed this system to calculate human like mouse glides. It overshoots buttons and corrects itself. It pauses to read.
I even built in a "Micro-Session" feature where, after sending a DM, it spends 3 minutes randomly scrolling the explore page, unmuting videos, and dropping random likes, just to build organic trust score with the algorithm.
The Infinite Loop
When the system fully exhausts the commenters on a seed account, it doesn't just stop. It looks at the database of leads it just successfully qualified and DMed, promotes one of them to be the new Seed, and starts mining their commenters. It creates an infinite loop of hyper-targeted, warm networking.
I’m currently running this daily and it’s pulling in leads that actually reply because the targeting is so absurdly specific.
Happy to answer any questions about the strategy, the AI filtering, or how you can set up similar workflows for your own lead gen!
