Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

unfashionable.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#261

Post by pbiggar »

signatoremo wrote: post #231
pbiggar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 40,000 people killed in Gaza by US weapons, in what even Biden called "indiscriminate bombing". YC should not be making cheaper ways for our allies to commit genocide.

If you put it that way, lot of people have been killed by Russia’s weapons in Ukraine. US’s weapons are used to protect civilians there. Think of all the Russia’s missiles shot down, or artillery depots blown up. Contemporary weapons are also much more precise. That means lower collateral damages. A lot of development efforts are to further enhance on that front. Weapon development is essential. Of course we should c…

Until we actually have controls to protect against excessive force, which we patently do not and have never had, building better weapons will always be used against civilians to commit attrocities.

Right now, we ignore the controls we do have. The US is not supposed to provide weapons to anyone violating human rights, which Israel is very obviously doing, as is agreed universally outside the US. But we still provide them with weapons as they are our "allies". While this is the case, de facto any better weapons we build are used to commit "better" crimes against humanity.

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#262

Post by rangav »

codegeek wrote: post #174
dgreensp wrote: post #106

Full disclosure, I'm a YC alum whose last start-up was acquired by Google, who applied to this batch and didn't get an interview. YC is not the stamp of quality it once was, to be sure, though it still works as social proof, because investors (especially VCs) want to invest in companies other investors like (or failing that, companies they imagine other investors would like). YC would say that they aren't trying to b…

YC's original appeal was for builders/creators who were truly passionate about building a great product that solved a real problem. Dropbox for example at the time. In my opinion, effectiveness of anything dilutes over time especially as you increase volume. There is no way you can maintain the same level of vetting and quality when you have a batch of 50 vs batch of 500+ which is now where YC is. So they must have t…

It looks like a numbers game. As Brian Chesky said, Silicon Valley have implicitly assumed that scaling a startup meant switching to manager mode. Now, YC seems to be operating in 'Manager Mode.'

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#263

Post by rangav »

YC used to select only top-tier startups, but now it seems more like a numbers game. As Brian Chesky mentioned, Silicon Valley has implicitly assumed that scaling a startup means shifting into 'manager mode.' It appears that YC is now operating in this 'manager mode.'

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#264

Post by KerryJones »

qq66 wrote: post #252
KerryJones wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a side tangent, but why have you focused on technology for creative and curious childhood? I'm curious if you have considered the following: I.e. Maria Montessori (founder of the Montessori methodology of teaching) did a pretty good job showing that's the natural state of kids, and there's quite a bit in her teachings about the importance of physical things, being outdoors, etc. There's some pretty st…

I definitely don't think babies should have iPads or preteens Instagram, but I believe that technology can be great for childhood because I had a computer from age 4, in 1987, and it was great for me. I learned how to program, I wrote an entire ~50 page book (which I wouldn't have done with pencil and paper), and by middle school I was sitting down with adults and showing them how to use the computer, which was reall…

Amazing, thanks for the response.

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#265

Post by fakedang »

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #224
dgreensp wrote: post #106

Full disclosure, I'm a YC alum whose last start-up was acquired by Google, who applied to this batch and didn't get an interview. YC is not the stamp of quality it once was, to be sure, though it still works as social proof, because investors (especially VCs) want to invest in companies other investors like (or failing that, companies they imagine other investors would like). YC would say that they aren't trying to b…

>Original YC would not reject founders over their current product strategy and because they haven't figured out the right way to structure their business--haven't put together the "proof" that they could be on track to be a unicorn, etc. That's a VC rejection. Of course, YC gets many thousands of applications and has to reject most of them. You could say they shouldn't be criticized for trying to give a little feedba…

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we are already at 10m valuation and AI in ecommerce doesn't really have 100m cap.

Or so you think. Keep going at it! Chatting with a lot of enterprise retailers for my startup (not in AI for e-commerce), but there's a shit ton of stuff where AI in e-commerce can help imo.

YC would be stupid if they dismissed your startup on valuation grounds - enterprise retail can't be arsed with this AI debauchery directly but would gladly pay for the privilege of claiming to use AI.

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#266

Post by pdonis »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #250
pdonis wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. Would it? With numbers that large, how could anyone possibly do a meaningful comparison and pick out the twenty or thirty or fifty that would get in? In other words, if it's obvious to everybody that you are getting too many applications to meaningfully evaluate all of them, they everybody knows that you are not meaningfull…

This is true of all top universities too. We get so many applications for grad school that we could admit several classes and not lose any quality. But I would never discourage anyone from applying. Even if the quality is high, having many applicants gives you good 2nd order choices. This depends on what mix of things you care about from DEI, to looking at specific ideas like the YC calls, to hedging across different…

> encouraging applications is the smart move

Only if you can actually do the due diligence required to maintain the quality of the student body, which is what you say the objective is. But if the number of applications is large enough, it's simply not feasible to do that due diligence for every application, and no amount of spin will prevent people from realizing that. So no, I don't agree that it's always the smart move to encourage more applicants.

> even if by your primary metric you can't distinguish between the top folks anymore

It's not a matter of distinguishing between "the top folks". It's a matter of whether or not you can plausibly defend the position that you are taking enough of an in depth look at every applicant, not just "the top folks", to maintain your quality metrics.

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#267

Post by reyqn »

satvikpendem wrote: post #256
cal85 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked up the etymology of prestige and it’s interesting. It comes from Latin praestigium ("delusion, illusion"), then 1500s French prestige meaning “deceit, imposture, illusion”. In the 1800s it started to mean “an illusion as to one's personal merit or importance, a flattering illusion”. I would have wrongly guessed it originally meant “good reputation” (same as the article author meant it, I assume) and that…

Hence the name of Nolan's movie.

And the word prestidigitation

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#268

Post by dartos »

blitzar wrote: post #183
qq66 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won't be starting such a fund for awhile, because the two of us are building company to make technology to foster a creative and curious childhood. We would be a good fit for any investors trying to do (3) though :) https://cartwheelcomputer.com/ amal@cartwheelcomputer.com

It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but children don't have much disposable income, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?

There are many industries aimed at children(‘s parents)

Did their landing page seem like it was talking to children or parents?

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#269

Post by zhaohan_dong »

KerryJones wrote: post #123
dgreensp wrote: post #106

Full disclosure, I'm a YC alum whose last start-up was acquired by Google, who applied to this batch and didn't get an interview. YC is not the stamp of quality it once was, to be sure, though it still works as social proof, because investors (especially VCs) want to invest in companies other investors like (or failing that, companies they imagine other investors would like). YC would say that they aren't trying to b…

This hits pretty dead center from what I've seen. You really hit home for at #3, that's the type of companies I want to see. If you start such a fund, I'd really enjoy working on that project.

I'm actually gauging interests. Crowding for immediate return -> Lowering return eventually. Case in point the OG geeks in the valley or quant funds doing those for hobby vs now people go straight to career. Same as Bitcoin was dope in 2012 and lame in 2020. New comers get in mostly for greed not passion.

But feels like LP are holding their $$$ for the fed rate to stabilize a bit.

Re: Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth

#270

Post by bulletsvshumans »

jorvi wrote: post #253
skeeter2020 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a lot of preferable options for connected, generally non-technical people after the dot-com implosion, for the first ~15 years of the 2000's. I joined a comp sci grad and his engineer brother in a software startup because we couldn't get jobs with an established company, big corp, investment bank or other much more likley "sure thing". The equation has completely changed, and the startup landscape with it.

Startups went from “let’s become the next Google” to “let’s get acquired by Google”. FAANG+ have become way too big and have effectively become a multi-opoly (oxymoron and a half) that has ossified the entire market.

Oligopoly is a close word.
Post reply on HN