Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delve removed from Y Combinator

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 344 posts

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#161

Post by maxbond »

jacquesm wrote: post #153
maxbond wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it require a huge leap of faith for them to admit the audit was improper in order to have that discussion? Who's to say you aren't recording?

I've already established that it was improper. It's up to them to make the most of that knowledge and then to determine of this is a singleton or an example of a class that has more representation. In that sense it is free to them, I'm under absolutely no obligation to provide them with a service. But I'm willing to expend the time and effort required to get them to make the most of it. What I'm not going to do is to…

I didn't mean it as a criticism, I think giving them the opportunity to improve and refusing to offer a scapegoat were both standup things to do. I'm just wondering if they were ever in a position to take that opportunity.

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#162

Post by miki123211 »

kaashif wrote: post #135
worik wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working around arguably dumb regulations... ...is breaking the law

Yes, but there is a difference between: 1. Customers want to do something, you help them do it, but it's illegal. 2. Customers want to do something, you tell them you did it, but you were lying and defrauding them.

And

3. Customers want to do something, you help them do it, and nobody has done it before, so whether it's legal or not is kind of up in the air.

E.G. Uber exploited a legal loophole that distinguished the kind of taxi service you hail on the street from the kind of taxi service you call on a phone.

The latter were much less regulated, and usually much more exclusive and pandering to a richer crowd. Nobody really knew which kind Uber should be classified as, it was the first kind in practice (same customer base as normal taxis) but the second in theory (ordered, not hailed).

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#163

Post by whatever1 »

maxbond wrote: post #34

I'm getting the impression that a lot of people in this thread think this is because they violated an open-source license and saying things to the effect of, "they're just the ones who got caught". I also thought that was the scandal initially. (And when it comes to license violations, yes, there's absolutely more where that came from.) But that's just the cherry on top. I don't think they're being thrown out because…

All LLMs do this, yet nobody bats an eye.

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#164

Post by [deleted] »

worik wrote: post #93
borski wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk. Technically, you’re right that that is also breaking the law. I wasn’t being careful with my words. How and why matters, though.

> I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk Not illegal here, but I hope you not complain when caught and fined.

[deleted]

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#165

Post by jacquesm »

maxbond wrote: post #161
jacquesm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already established that it was improper. It's up to them to make the most of that knowledge and then to determine of this is a singleton or an example of a class that has more representation. In that sense it is free to them, I'm under absolutely no obligation to provide them with a service. But I'm willing to expend the time and effort required to get them to make the most of it. What I'm not going to do is to…

I didn't mean it as a criticism, I think giving them the opportunity to improve and refusing to offer a scapegoat were both standup things to do. I'm just wondering if they were ever in a position to take that opportunity.

Hard to tell. But given that it was their legal department contacting me I think you know the answer to that one.

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#166

Post by jacquesm »

Koffiepoeder wrote: post #157
jacquesm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they do not track the industry at all, at best they'll help you win the war of five years ago.

Imagine my face when I had to take periodic backups of stateless, immutable read-only filesystem, non-root containers for "compliance".

That's hilarious :)

Ook goeiemorgen...

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#167

Post by FreakLegion »

minimaxir wrote: post #94
kstrauser wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I know nothing about this other than what I've read here, but my first guess was the breakdown in trust means the allegations of fake audits.

I was half-joking, but if YC has a legal issue resulting from the alleged fraud (unclear currently), kicking out the company for the lesser infraction would make more sense.

Investors aren't on the hook for the bad behavior of companies they invest in. Quite the opposite: Defrauding investors (and acquirers, and creditors) is commonly the thing that lands people like Elizabeth Holmes in prison.

Re: Delve removed from Y Combinator

#170

Post by dmos62 »

latexr wrote: post #154
dmos62 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you wish well on people you don't want to associate with? It would be interesting if you didn't, imo.

> people you don't want to associate with That’s an oversimplification of what your parent comment said, which was someone who has betrayed your trust . > It would be interesting if you didn't Why? What’s interesting about it? You don’t have to actively wish harm on people who harmed you, but there’s nothing strange about not wishing them well.

You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness.

We throw around words like "interesting", which is a subtle way to say "not normal", which is a subtle way to say that that's not how we would behave and that we think that others shouldn't behave that way either. So I take back what I said about what is interesting to me, and I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions or repercussions you impose on them.

Post reply on HN