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

Jessica Livingston (2015)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#31

Post by starkparker »

bluepod4 wrote: post #15

I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation. But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet certain guidelines. It’s a stub article and lacked certain citations. Why not just flesh the article out? The “Notability” tag on Wikipedia has a different meaning than “notability” in the dictionary. Either way, it seems like someone already removed the tag manua…

> But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article

AnomieBot put a date on the tag, it didn't add it. The tag was added without a listed reason by an anonymous user while not logged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingsto...

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#32

Post by 2arrs2ells »

billclerico wrote: post #28
mkmk wrote: post #4

While we're on the topic, she's also the author of this wonderful book of founder interviews, which is illuminating even 15ish years after publication. I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it yet: https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Work-Stories-Startups-Early/...

Also worth mentioning her new podcast (along with Carolynn Levy), The Social Radars, which is sort of a podcast version of Founders At Work: https://www.thesocialradars.com/

This podcast is wonderful – I'd recommend starting with the Paul Graham espisode.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#35

Post by petesergeant »

echelon wrote: post #25
bluepod4 wrote: post #15

I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation. But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet certain guidelines. It’s a stub article and lacked certain citations. Why not just flesh the article out? The “Notability” tag on Wikipedia has a different meaning than “notability” in the dictionary. Either way, it seems like someone already removed the tag manua…

The photo situation on Wikipedia is so weird. Editors often upload bad photos, even if better alternatives exist in the public domain or are fair use. But the thing that grates me more than anything is Wikipedia uses elderly photos of famous figures that were at the peak of their careers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The appearance of these public figures changes, and sometimes the changes are so dramatic that I have t…

Also surely their publicists can (and should) source professional photos of them and then license them so they can be used by Wikipedia

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#37

Post by alexpotato »

One of the things she's best at is judging people. She's one of those rare individuals with x-ray vision for character. She can see through any kind of faker almost immediately. Her nickname within YC was the Social Radar, and this special power of hers was critical in making YC what it is

A manager at a past job also had a similar "x-ray vision".

During interviews, she would always sit in with another interviewer and never ask any questions of the candidates. She would just observe.

Over 5 years of working with her, every single person she said we should hire turned out great. Every person she said was no good, turned out to not be great.

This was particularly fascinating to watch when she was the lone dissenter either way. e.g. there were times where 7 out of 8 interviewers said "pass", she said "hire" and she was always right.

The first time I read pg's essay about Jessica, it immediately reminded me of my old manager.

It also reminds me of a story from, I believe, Malcolm Gladwell's Blink about the tennis coach who knew before a tennis player served if they would double fault.

Some people have either a natural gift or their brains have picked up a set of weights for their internal neural network that make them fantastic at this kind of thing.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#39

Post by bluepod4 »

starkparker wrote: post #31
bluepod4 wrote: post #15

I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation. But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet certain guidelines. It’s a stub article and lacked certain citations. Why not just flesh the article out? The “Notability” tag on Wikipedia has a different meaning than “notability” in the dictionary. Either way, it seems like someone already removed the tag manua…

> But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article AnomieBot put a date on the tag, it didn't add it. The tag was added without a listed reason by an anonymous user while not logged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingsto...

Ok, I see.

But even though a valid reason wasn’t listed, it appears that valid reasons did exist. “Valid” based on guidelines not personal opinion. The anon user still could have done this based on personal opinion and/or ill intentions.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#40

Post by swyx »

jedberg wrote: post #7

Even though this is old, I'm glad it's here again. Jessica deserves so much credit for the success of YC but she's far too humble to make a big deal of it herself. It's important for the rest of us to call this out once in a while. Thank you Jessica for everything you've done and do.

ngl i had a mild heart attack seeing her name at the top of HN
Post reply on HN