21–30 of 225 posts
YC is a one-trick-pony. If you have a simple product, it can guide you to get users, investors and to scale it up. But don’t expect anything else. It would not help, if you are outside of that scenario. It easily can screw you, by using any product ideas that you’ve refined and sharing these freely with a relevant startup in the batch.
One trick pony? They have created 5-10% of all unicorns in existence
@dang, please change the root link to the nitter thread.
On one hand, this suggestion stands in opposition to HN rules (link to source) but on the other is more reasonable as linking nitter provides viewer with more information, as an addition to single post that non-registered Twitter users would be able to see.
Instead, users get taught to visit the comments first and upvote a comment with that link.
Twitter is such a garbage way to convey this kind of information.
YC is a one-trick-pony. If you have a simple product, it can guide you to get users, investors and to scale it up. But don’t expect anything else. It would not help, if you are outside of that scenario. It easily can screw you, by using any product ideas that you’ve refined and sharing these freely with a relevant startup in the batch.
One trick pony? They have created 5-10% of all unicorns in existence
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.
So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity" metric sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided policies which are (C) not sustainable in the long term anyway.
I imagine the biggest reason is it raises the sense of commitment for everyone involved.
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…
I guess what you are saying is buy calls for Nvidia
Nvidia seem to me to have been consistently competent in improving their product lines. Perhaps my only criticism would be of their artificial hampering of some of their products, which they do in order to appease certain PC gamers by excluding the gaming market from usual supply/demand effects. This has the knock-on effect of severely reducing the compatibility of the hardware with Linux, which of course is by far the most sensible option for cloud computing hosts right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One trick pony? They have created 5-10% of all unicorns in existence
Be honest about winner's bias... there are a lot of dead horses in their graveyard too.
Wow, even the bleeding edge, move fast and break things, disruptive crowd has reaffirmed one tradition: "in-person is the best." I think this settles it. WFH is less productive.
No, it only reaffirms, if anything, that fast moving startups benefit from in-person relationship, guidance and communication with peers more than they would over Teams.
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 best for some people, and not for others.)