Live data from Hacker News

Why YC went to DC

ycombinator.com

111–120 of 407 posts

Re: Why YC went to DC

#111
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

>. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest.

If you know for certain that "they are BlockBuster, you are Netflix", then why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying?

This is absolutely about workers -- specifically, companies not wanting to pay workers anything close to what they are worth.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#112
post #70
post #14

"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.

What’s ironic is that Michael Seibel has discussed many times on the YC podcast that you should avoid building whatever’s hot for VCs because their attention tends to change every year but you’ll be stuck building for a decade. 2020 was remote work, 2021 was web3, now we have the big LLM boom. Honestly it seems there’s a lot of advantages to “riding a wave” and a lot of advantages to being contrarian. But if raising…

On the other hand, I can see how basically any product can have some useful features backed by AI. I never felt that with web3.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#113
post #13

This new essay by Jack Clark, who was at OpenAI when they made the decision not to release GPT-2 for safety reasons five years ago, feels relevant: https://importai.substack.com/p/import-ai-375-gpt-2-five-yea... > [...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever…

Why did they decide not to release GPT-2? I haven't heard about it.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#114
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

If you are truly netflix-to-be, you should be able to affordably incentivize your 12 key employees with equity.

An exit for Employee < 50 at a netflix-to be will be in the hundreds of millions.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#115
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so convinced about that reconciliation! Most media in general is not conducted through individual entities. Even the small film maker or newspaper is usually going to be organized as an LLC, even if it is just a single person trying to submit their film to a festival or something. These should be subject to governmental regulation if they touch on political topics? I think this is significantly thornier than…

That's why they're intrinsically linked. If you mandate that non-human entities have an 1st amendment right, you cannot have meaningful campaign finance limits. Ergo, because it's worth having campaign finance limits, in the interest of allowing the best candidate / idea to win, I think it's worth threshing through stripping 1st amendment rights from non-human entities. Regarding how one weighs what sort of speech wo…

my point is that stripping non-human entities of 1st amendment is effectively repealing the 1st amendment in the US, if it allows the government to regulate newspapers/printmakers/movies based on political content. so your point is essentially that campaign finance trumps 1A, which might be true but i am not so sure

Re: Why YC went to DC

#116
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

> In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest.

That's the choice of your staff and the reality you have to deal with, isn't it? I'm sure you as worker would prefer to have such an option.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#117
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

>Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix.

What percentage of the company did you share with your workers? What is their upside if you really are a blockbuster?

If the workers really had an upside, then they might stick with you.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#118
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

If a dozen people worked hard enough to gain the knowledge that gets them “rest and vest” at Google, they deserve it. Monetary reward is the reason we’re working at all. It’s not for the greater good. You’re certainly not going to convince anyone to give the government power to deny them their right to take the money and run

Re: Why YC went to DC

#119

> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions). YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. > Seco…

lots of small companies are reliant on the cheap prices big tech companies offer. by taxing big companies all that does is shift the burden of costs to the small business, making it harder for them to grow.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#120
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)

The military has lots of waste and graft, but it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system (unlike a lot of the rest of government). I am skeptical that churn is a cause of problems, almost everywhere I have worked in government has by far the opposite problem. The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.

(by plum brook, do you mean NASA? If so, I've met some smart people from there and other NASA posts, but also met some of the worst employees that epitomize some of what the discussion is against - very toxic, against any new ideas, refusing to retire, shirking duties etc. at one point one org had an average age of 59+, that's very indicative of a refusal to move on).

>it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system

I suspect you would get a very different perspective if you talked to enlisted servicemembers (or subordinate officers). I would argue the commissioning system is better than the previous aristocratic commissioning system, but still relatively poor at mating skills to positions.

I think churn is a couple of problems for a couple of different potential reasons:

1) constantly moving positions tends to leave the more complicated problems unsolved. For one, it's difficult to truly understand the dynamics of a complicated system in a short period. Secondly, if someone is concerned with promotion, attacking small problems tends to get you a win during your tenure, while it's unlikely you'll make much headway on a really difficult or complicated problem. Even worse is the commander who has all kinds of great ideas they want implemented even before they really understand the problem (ie the 'good idea fairy' dilemma)

2) military churn can bias toward giving people responsibility beyond their capability, simply because they need someone to fill that role. This is especially with younger organizations (and the military definitely biases young). Meaning you tend to people with a lot of power/responsibility before their frontal lobe is even fully developed.

Now I do think the military does a pretty good job at accountability, which can mitigate some of those factors. But if that's the case, we should be trying to optimize for "accountability" and not "churn".

The better military organizations seem to have "churn" in the uniformed services in charge but a steady cadre of professional civilian staff supporting them.

Post reply on HN