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

You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#31

Post by portLAN »

vlad wrote: post #26
portLAN wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What I'd like" isn't the same as, "here's how I can make money for you". That's what it boils down to with almost all investors; minus ones who are okay with sinking in money regardless of profit to scratch a personal itch (of course they're probably going to micromanage in that case). > it is more important to have a good team, than a specific idea or a specific market Ideas are certainly easier to come by; executi…

I'm sorry you've experienced lack of passion in the past and want to share it, but I can't help you here. I have no idea what that must be like. I'm looking to take my 4-year-old lone adventure with one product, to a great team effort on something even bigger, always forging ahead without waiting for a perfect opportunity. No matter how many times you post, the team means more than an idea. Ideas can be changed a mil…

I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing" in this context but I did note your mini-autobiography above:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588

Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team:

Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter or a boxer. Then I tell you we're playing basketball. And you get beaten by Venezuela.

> Again, thanks for sharing your experience.

I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way.

I'm pointing out that if you don't care what you work on, your results won't be as good. Thus, you should figure out what you do care about, and work on that.

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#33

Post by augy »

vlad wrote: post #6
SwellJoe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain that's a bad idea. They were overwhelmed by the 400+ apps they got last time...I don't think they'd take kindly to someone gaming the system and forcing them to read an extra 20 apps (I'm pretty sure the round file would be the only one seeing all of your applications).

I went back and made it more obvious I was kidding. But is there any hacker serious about being an entrepreneur and working on a project during the Winter session and beyond?

dbosson@gmail.com

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#34

Post by portLAN »

asdflkj wrote: post #28
portLAN wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All personal evaluations are subject to whims. An investor does or doesn't like the idea; does or doesn't like the people. Cisco was turned down by 70 or 80 VCs. Nobody has a crystal ball, and at the end of the day, you guess; the dealmaker or breaker is frequently some arbitrary factor.

Are you intentionally using the phrase "subject to" to obscure your logic? It could mean "likely to be affected by", or it could mean "dependent on". The meaning changes completely.

You're asking me to resolve ambiguity by presenting more ambiguous choices. I think you intend "solely dependent on" when you say "dependent on".

A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subjective component. Not only can they not predict the market performance of what you're building, but they want you to be "flexible" with the idea, even to the point of throwing it away and switching to something completely different. In those cases it means they can't possibly objectively evaluate your plan, because you don't have one yet.

The greater the lack of objective data, the more subjective preference comes into play.

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#35

Post by vlad »

portLAN wrote: post #31
vlad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you've experienced lack of passion in the past and want to share it, but I can't help you here. I have no idea what that must be like. I'm looking to take my 4-year-old lone adventure with one product, to a great team effort on something even bigger, always forging ahead without waiting for a perfect opportunity. No matter how many times you post, the team means more than an idea. Ideas can be changed a mil…

I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing" in this context but I did note your mini-autobiography above: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588 Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team: Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter…

I said I don't care what project I take on as long as I'm with a great group of people, but you quoted me saying that I don't care (careless). That's a big difference.

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#37

Post by portLAN »

vlad wrote: post #35
portLAN wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing" in this context but I did note your mini-autobiography above: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588 Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team: Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter…

I said I don't care what project I take on as long as I'm with a great group of people, but you quoted me saying that I don't care (careless). That's a big difference.

That's a misinterpretation. Maybe this quote will explain it better:

"I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle." -- Steve Jobs

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-06150...

(You can also find it on Google Video)

> as long as I'm with a great group of people

Except how are you going to know that until they do great work? Which is very unlikely if you're not all working on what you love. If you don't care what you work on, then you haven't found what you love -- otherwise you'd work on that.

Merely being "great" without reference to a particular context isn't very useful. Take your favorite 5 entrepreneurs, stick them in a room, and probably nothing gets done. PG and Max Levchin we know; maybe Marc Andreessen; take your pick. They probably couldn't even agree on a language, and they're all used to being the one in charge.

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#38

Post by asdflkj »

portLAN wrote: post #34
asdflkj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you intentionally using the phrase "subject to" to obscure your logic? It could mean "likely to be affected by", or it could mean "dependent on". The meaning changes completely.

You're asking me to resolve ambiguity by presenting more ambiguous choices. I think you intend " solely dependent on" when you say "dependent on". A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subject…

"Subjective preference" and "whim" are two completely different things. Let's look at the post that started all of this: "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's whim". If you replace that with "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's subjective preference", that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it? Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#39

Post by vlad »

portLAN wrote: post #37
vlad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said I don't care what project I take on as long as I'm with a great group of people, but you quoted me saying that I don't care (careless). That's a big difference.

That's a misinterpretation. Maybe this quote will explain it better: "I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to…

No, there's no "misinterpretation." I hope you respect that I choose to follow more credible sources. It's very hard to take somebody's advice who we don't know. Maybe you care to share your background? Thanks for the discussion!

I DO want to work on what I want to work on, but with investment and other people (which might not be exactly what I or my team envisioned, of course.)

Re: You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!

#40

Post by portLAN »

asdflkj wrote: post #38
portLAN wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking me to resolve ambiguity by presenting more ambiguous choices. I think you intend " solely dependent on" when you say "dependent on". A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subject…

"Subjective preference" and "whim" are two completely different things. Let's look at the post that started all of this: "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's whim". If you replace that with "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's subjective preference", that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it? Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the…

You might find it helpful to check the definition. Amer. Heritage: whim: "Arbitrary thought or impulse". Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference".

> that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it?

Good thing it's definitionally equivalent and I used the form that would provoke a stronger visceral response, in order to get the idea across more forcefully.

YC should just be one possible tool you can use. Keep in mind that if you do actually have something valuable, you're doing them quite a favor by letting them get a percentage for such a tiny investment.

> Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.

You're a bit mixed-up there. Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas any more than starting your own record label makes you an expert on music.

It's also fairly apparent that no one person is going to be a good filter for all ideas or people. We've all been surprised by various start-up successes.

Post reply on HN