Live data from Hacker News

Ways YC has changed in the last year

twitter.com

141–150 of 225 posts

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#141
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you get married are you going to do it over Zoom or have everyone show up in person?

Wasn't aware I needed to marry my coworkers. Most companies I've worked at have strong HR policies around that.

Since you don't seem to be getting the point, let me break it down to you - you seem to realize that a marriage needs regular in-person interaction to make it work. Also, co-founding a company is another relationship where regular in-person interaction is needed to make it work. YC data seems to indicate that.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#142
post #88
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some problems? 15 minutes with a whiteboard. There’s no good e-replacement. For other problems? Sure, slack and zoom are perfectly adequate to preferable.

> For some problems? 15 minutes with a whiteboard. There’s no good e-replacement. People say this, but FigJam or even Microsoft Whiteboard work fantastically for this if you've equipped your team with the right hardware. I often sit down with people and noodle through problems on an iPad (and for me at least the Pencil is required) with FigJam in a low-friction manner.

I have really tried many different tools since 2020 and none of those worked as well as an in-person whiteboard sessions with 3-4 colleagues.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonverbal and unstructured, unplanned communication don't really translate well to the digital world (yet)

Let me introduce you to Slack and cell phone calls.

Let me introduce you to body language, tone, facial expressions and personal energy, which are simply not captured in slack or zoom or phone calls.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#144

It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to), but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are going to continue to outperform other technologies and become sustainable to run. There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the vast majority of LLM…

Friendly reminder: the strategy here is to invest in the founders, not the ideas. So great founders right now create AI startups. So either AI solves problems or they arent great founders.

That's exactly right. When people see YC funding a lot of AI startups, a lot of them think it must be because YC has some thesis about AI.

Actually, it says something much deeper about the world than whatever YC's partners' opinions are. YC funds founders, not ideas, so the reason that so many companies in S23 are AI startups is that that's what founders want to work on right now. It's an emergent phenomenon, like stock prices in the market.

One thing that's interesting is that there have been many hype cycles between 2006 and now (chatbots, several waves of crypto, VR, online-to-offline, etc). YC funded a few companies in each of those hype cycles but never anything like the current %.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was NFTs, what would the winning strategy have been? Strike when the iron is hot and hype is at the maximum and hope to get some exits or subsequent rounds asap, or draw it out. From a portfolio perspective, it's just one batch, might as well go all in and maximally capitalize on hype, no?

These gigantic valuations for AI startups are only there because the startups aren't choosing to exit yet - big demand, low supply. Whilst acknowledging my lack of a crystal ball, I would imagine that once the few biggest companies have had their fill of acquiring AI startups for billions at a time, the remaining startups won't be so desirable any longer. YC needs to make sure they actually have a market to sell thes…

I'm really curious to know why my root comment saying 'this investment strategy is very risky and would make me nervous' has loads of upvotes, but my parent comment here - which I think has broadly the same message phrased in a different way - has three downvotes. Please enlighten me :)

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#146
post #11

You are being luddites. COVID having forced you to be remote is not enough to validate this constant preaching from SV leadership (and only leadership - no one without millions in equity ever lobbies for this) that nothing can replace in person. The fact that Paul Graham compares it to communism is fitting for so many reasons.

Without commenting on all the complex dynamics of WFH vs the office, I can say that I, personally, enjoy working in the office more. I am an individual contributor software engineer, without millions in equity in anything.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#147
post #30

> We've now tried every point on the spectrum: fully remote, hybrid and fully in-person. So now we don't have to worry if we're being luddites: in-person YC just really is the best. How was this determined to be best? (Obviously, they haven't controlled for variables like the switch to 4 smaller batches, and the high percentage of startups all doing one exciting thing (AI). And do they realize the costs. And is it be…

A lot of the comments in here are about the debate on whether companies should be remote or in-person.

That's an important debate but orthogonal to what I wrote. The YC batch is not a company. It doesn't really have a close analogue, but if you forced me to choose, I'd say that doing YC is more similar to going to college than working at a company. And as all we all know, while many companies are staying fully remote, hardly any university is.

Having now done this back-to-back, I can tell you exactly the ways in which in-person YC turned out to be better than remote YC.

1). Most founders in remote YC didn't make strong connections with their batchmates. When I ask founders from remote batches "how many founders in your batch are you still close with?", they typically give an answer that's 0-3. When I ask founders from in-person batches the same question, it's 10+.

2). When YC really works, it's because it not only conveys some factual advice, but changes the way founders think and behave.

When founders go through in-person batches, they're usually significantly different by the end of the batch - tougher, savvier, and more formidable. Whatever causes that did not translate well to zoom.

3). In-person YC is simply more fun. YC has always been in part about being fun experience, because startups need to be fun or they'd be too difficult and demoralizing. Zoom is very effective for communicating information, but no one has fun at Zoom parties.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#148

It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to), but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are going to continue to outperform other technologies and become sustainable to run. There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the vast majority of LLM…

Friendly reminder: the strategy here is to invest in the founders, not the ideas. So great founders right now create AI startups. So either AI solves problems or they arent great founders.

[dead]

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#149
post #25
post #11

You are being luddites. COVID having forced you to be remote is not enough to validate this constant preaching from SV leadership (and only leadership - no one without millions in equity ever lobbies for this) that nothing can replace in person. The fact that Paul Graham compares it to communism is fitting for so many reasons.

I often highlight that every claim of +X% "productivity" with RTO is based on an implicit assumption that the commute is uncompensated , and that employees will eat all the costs (man-hours, fuel) of coming into the office.... At least for a few quarters, until angry people leave for closer or better-paying jobs. So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity" metric sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided pol…

My company has instituted a 3 day RTO policy.

First week? Had a fever, didn't go in. Second week? Went in 2 days. Had too much shit to do to worry about office crap. Third week? Also 2 days. There were less than 10% of the desks filled on both days I went.

Going real smooth. And I guarantee you that every single person who is actually going into the office is counting commute time against their working hours.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easier to make blanket rules than do performance mgmt for managers . If data shows some % of the company has been completely slacking off with WFH (or over employed etc) you could either hold mgmt accountable (but how? Fire all VPs for letting that happen? Fire all line managers?) or just make blanket policies…

That line of management of management is allowing incompetence to fester. My spouse is at a shop that keeps ratcheting up the RTO days “because people aren’t abiding by the current RTO days”. This of course is idiotic because the shirkers don’t get punished and everyone ends up worst off. In fact the people already complying are worst effected. If you can’t count on managers to enforce rules then why have managers or…

I agree your question is relevant, but the problem is do directors want to acknowledge that the level below them is incompetent at performance mgmt at a small granularity? Because what does that say about them?
Post reply on HN