161–170 of 290 posts
Possibly prompted by this anonymous Forbes piece making the rounds on Twitter recently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/07/what-it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I'm not as easily impressed as you are. Sam Altman recently wrote[1], "Yes, it’s awful to hear the horror stories of wildly inappropriate behavior from investors to the entrepreneurs pitching them. (Unfortunately, stories like these are not super rare, but because there’s a big cost to going public with them, most never get told. My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that this…
Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…
I know this doesn't mean anything because I'm just some random Internet stranger you don't actually know, but as someone who has stuck up for your comments in the past, I've been made to feel embarrassed by this one.
I will, of course, get over both it and, later, myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wait until after demo day and the conflict of interest has cleared, before asking someone on a date. It's not that tough.
Since there are some founders who go through YC more than once, that's not good enough. There are 6 billion people on this planet. It's not that hard to figure out as a YC investor: if it's a YC founder, they're no longer part of that pool. Period. I'm amazed at the amount of "but what if ..." discussion here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…
Saying that feminists are in a position of power is utterly ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anonymity in that article doesn't help. It doesn't matter how much money you have the kind of behavior described in that article is unacceptable. I like to think that the majority of technologists and entrepreneurs are humanists and they are in it to make the world a better place. I also like to think that if the article wasn't anonymous there would be non-violent collective action to make it known in no uncertai…
>they are in it to make the world a better place No, saying that you want to make the world a better place, and saying that whatever you are working on makes the world a better place, is entirely (100%) different from actually taking the necessary actions to solving known and common world problems and actually making the world a better place. The level of hypocrisy in tech is beyond ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like your saying, "Why isn't there a VC firm that states outright you might be sexually harassed to receive funding" How are you possibly surprised that isn't a thing...? Of course it's not and never could or should be. You're comment is being down-voted because it's pretty ridiculous; the extremely low possibility(non-existant) coupled with the offensive nature of the concept as a whole makes it mind-boggl…
So, let's actually explore the idea a bit, and you'll see that it actually is not completely worth dismissing outright. One of the big problems with unwanted romantic advances is that they can come unexpectedly: you're there to do a deal, and the other person is trying to find a way of getting in your pants; you give out your number for business, other person calls you with non-business propositions. It's stressful a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…
Saying that feminists are in a position of power is utterly ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam Altman acknowledges that stories of this behavior are not "super rare", but that "most" stories don't get told for obvious reasons. Y Combinator states that Demo Day is attended by "most of the world’s top startup investors." This is a large group of people. Given the size of the investor pool and apparent prevalence of this behavior, the "nearly all the investors we know are completely upstanding and professiona…
You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
Your suggestion that I somehow claimed most investors working with YC are harassing women is so absurd as to be comical. I don't know what your agenda is, and frankly don't care, but if you're going to try to distort what I wrote, I'm confident you can do a better job.
Possibly prompted by this anonymous Forbes piece making the rounds on Twitter recently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/07/what-it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One day there may be a VC that only interacts with potential investments through the internet where no age, gender, height, orientation, religion, etc. is ever disclosed, both by the investor and investees. The only information to go off of would be the product/service, the business plan, and the integrity of the idea. Funny how this hasn't really caught on yet...
This will never happen because investors don't strictly invest in ideas. They also invest in people. Pg would fund any Zuckerberg idea, not because of the idea, but because of Zuckerberg's qualities. Or, put differently, Facebook minus Zuckerberg may have failed. Their early years were tenuous, and one wrong decision about what users would or wouldn't tolerate may have broken their momentum. You can't assess that via…