[deleted]
What I Didn't Say
21–30 of 601 posts
Re: What I Didn't Say
#22I didn't find any of the quotes that I read, even if they were out of context, remotely offensive. But I can see how someone who makes it a point to be offended by things might deliberately interpret it in a bad way, and convince other people that that is in fact what was meant by it.
For example, you say that you don't know how you'd convince 13 year old girls to be interested in programming. The normal interpretation is, 'Clearly 13 year old girls are very rarely interested in programming, and Paul Graham doesn't know how to change that.' The nasty interpretation is 'Paul Graham thinks that girls are intrinsically incapable of being interested in programming'.
It's easy to be offended by things. It's also obnoxious and often irresponsible.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#23> whether we could, in effect, accept women we would have accepted if they had been hackers "wouldn't"?
It is a confusing sentence, but I think it's correct. I think it would be clearer if it said "whether we could, in effect, accept women (who are not hackers) we would have accepted if they had been hackers"
The stuff I added in brackets is implied. The main question is accepting women who are not hackers, as if they were, given the (challenged) assumption that you can turn them into hackers in YC.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no gatekeepers in the startup culture. How would that even work? Would pg deny you a business license? Stop you from getting a VPS? Remotely invalidate your copy of The Art of Computer Programming?
Not PG specifically, but unless you operate on the premise that getting into YC does nothing to help your startup OR that YC's acceptance processes are flawless (two assertions I'm 100% certain PG would not make) then there is a layer of gatekeeperdome inherit in what YC does. I would personally argue it's a large one, but it certainly IS one.
I don't know why I can't reply to you but
1. That's what YC almost always does, invest as the first and only investor in their own round where they take 7%-ish equity in exchange for a bit of money and all the other things they do. There are rare occasions where that's not what happens, but that's the norm. There's also a follow up from the YC fund that is convertible debt of some kind and always comes from the investors, but that's still 100% based on YC's decision
2. Gatekeeper might not be the perfect term, but it's darn close. YC is a gate, they are the keepers of the gate, and it's an important gate. Not the gate TO doing a startup but a gate IN startupdome.
Edited original comment to be more clear, I can see how the insinuation the being in YC is a gate you must cross to do a startup would cause confusion.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#25Any interaction with the press is terrifying in almost any circumstance because you never know and really have no control over whether the outlet is going to pull something like this. I always have the impulse to refuse media interaction unless I can get final approval on the published piece, which, of course, no one will ever give you.
It's important for all of us to remember that the incentives of the media and their subjects are not necessarily aligned, and that bombastic distortions such as this are common.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#26Jakob Kaplan Moss owes PG a public apology for his behavior. The witch hunt tweets that were coming out of him without getting the facts straight are downright disheartening.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no gatekeepers in the startup culture. How would that even work? Would pg deny you a business license? Stop you from getting a VPS? Remotely invalidate your copy of The Art of Computer Programming?
Not PG specifically, but unless you operate on the premise that getting into YC does nothing to help your startup OR that YC's acceptance processes are flawless (two assertions I'm 100% certain PG would not make) then there is a layer of gatekeeperdome inherit in what YC does. I would personally argue it's a large one, but it certainly IS one.
You seem to have "gatekeeper" confused with "guidance."
Re: What I Didn't Say
#28I wonder how much time and energy is wasted defending or clarifying comments, particularly by people who would otherwise be creating value.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read his essay, he states that this wasn't an "interview", the reporter was doing background for another story on Jessica. It was never intended to be an interview.
Which makes the fact that the material was published as if it had been an interview, without any explanation of the actual circumstances, particularly bothersome IMO.
Yeah, publishing remarks made to a reporter as part of background on a story is unethical.
Re: What I Didn't Say
#30I wonder why pg did an interview for a site that was going to go behind an (expensive) paywall and was going to be edited. I know that "fixing journalism" is something pg would like to see[1], and (pg, sorry to put words in your mouth here) maybe he felt a for-pay site aiming for quality journalism was the answer? But it still seems weird he did this interview. EDIT: I did read the article and know he was allegedly t…
I'm sure he's unhappy about it, and feels betrayed. What good would it do for him to make an expression of that a major component of his response? Wouldn't that just result in another witch hunt like the one PG is trying to quell with this piece? He can handle his personal resentment in a more quiet context and save everyone else the chaos.