Changes at YC • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes at YC

#151

Post by Kwpolska » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

ftxbro wrote: post #65

[flagged]

That's still too long and flowery.

    You probably know what YC is.

    We were recently doing late-stage investing, but we're mostly giving up on that now.

    We're firing 17 people who were involved in late-stage investing.

    You won't notice their disappearance.

There, four sentences, and no AI involved.

Re: Changes at YC

#152

Post by tick_tock_tick » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #72

So where is the bailout for these impacted people? Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired? And then they don't do one themselves?

> Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired?

No, that never happened where did you see that?

> So where is the bailout for these impacted people?

Unemployment exists and I'd bet a lot they got severance pay.

Re: Changes at YC

#153

Post by smithmayowa » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

bloodyplonker22 wrote: post #150

voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

I knew an ex co-worker who grew up in another country whose manager, in a "sync up meeting", told him that he was "impacted" and he didn't need to continue work on his current sprint. He came out of the meeting with a smile, had no idea what this meant, and he showed up the next day.

Damn that sucks dude probably thought he was being praised or something.

Re: Changes at YC

#154

Post by danvoell » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #29

djyaz1200 wrote: post #17

I'd be very interested in the specifics of how and why late stage investing is so different that the success of YC in early stages doesn't translate.

Id guess that YC has a much greater competitive moat in the former. It's much "easier" to do late stage investing - a few big transactions instead of many many small ones, and everyone's working with the same information. Very few places have the infrastructure to deal with large volumes of start-ups + a lead flow of small companies trying to join YC, so there's no acquisition costs. Add to that, YC's experience with…

I would think having seed stage investments would offer additional late stage moat. My first thought was that the current down round later stage environment is squeezing a ton of common equity founders/execs. Its tough to be both founder friendly and investing at later stage prices that leave many startup execs low in equity/motivation.

Re: Changes at YC

#155

Post by SilasX » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #62

bradleyjg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

They're not quite the same, those two terms have taken on different meanings. "Fired" has come to mean "for cause", and "laid off" has come to mean "not for cause".

It’s the opposite: they started out distinct, but then, by the euphemism treadmill, became used interchangeably.

And if you go back even further it meant something even milder, like furloughed or terminated with the intent to rehire when expected business picks up.

Re: Changes at YC

#156

Post by epicureanideal » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

I’m surprised that even an innovative, creative organization like YC wasn’t able to create other positions for these folks. I guess that just shows how hard business is even for people who are good at it.

Re: Changes at YC

#157

Post by bradleyjg » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #106

bink wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fired -> Let go -> Laid off -> Impacted I'll be curious to see what comes next.

Terminated is to the left of fired.

Playing around at the online etymology dictionary, it appears dismiss is the oldest—early 15th century. Sack and fire are from the 19th century, and laid off in this sense isn’t until the 1960s. Terminate, as in dismiss from a job, is first attested in 1973.

Re: Changes at YC

#158

Post by dvt » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

Zetice wrote: post #85

dvt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine thinking that billionaires actually bought SVB stock or held cash in there. Protip: their capital is tied up in dozens of companies, which were, indeed, bailed out.

"Their capital" is vastly different from "them", as it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out.

> it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out

Uh, that's what wealthy people do -- they give money to other people to make them even more money. This was so transparently a billionaire bailout (Gary Tan & David Sacks were literally on a press tour), I fail to understand how people are so mesmerized by the shell game here.

Re: Changes at YC

#159

Post by slt2021 » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

whitemary wrote: post #86

fnordpiglet wrote: post #6

Sorry to everyone who lost their jobs. It can feel like the end of the world and your worth. But I’ve seen throughout my career people land somewhere better. Someone once wise told me the most important saying in the world is “this too shall pass,” which applies to all things, good and bad.

[flagged]

Have you actually ever lived in Soviet Union? or just read Lenin's books?

Re: Changes at YC

#160

Post by bigbraintheroom » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

garry wrote: post #11

doodlesdev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it almost impossible to not see them as related. Take a look at [0]. Long-term this could be a good decision, I believe early-stage investing really is different to late-stage investment, but of course the moment to make this decision makes it evident there are other factors at play that influence this. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35114009

Changes of this sort cannot happen in a very short amount of time. The timing was coincidental.

I have made changes with other C-level employees in under 30m which had more than 30m of impact.

Can you explain how that would not be the case here? Not understanding how this timing is “coincidental”, it doesn’t appear to be that way at all.