Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory. I think the thing that you're missing is that success breeds success. PG was able to be successful with YC because there were a few successes from the first batch, which built the reputation. That lead to more applications, which meant more people to choose from. Being smart in the choices is part of it, but there are a LOT of successful businesses that weren't part of Y…
> I think the thing that you're missing is that success breeds success. Doesn't this strengthen the argument that luck matters? Consider the careers of hollywood actors. They tend to be jump started by the "big break", rather than being a smooth linear promotion. But LA is stuffed to the gills with actors who never got that big break. The entire city is notoriously oversupplied with good looking waitstaff.
I'm not suggesting that luck has no role, but I don't think it is lucky break after lucky break.
With respect to LA actors, my brother is a director, and he says there is a massive difference between the successful and unsuccessful actors. I thought it was luck, he thinks they work harder than the rest and are better at there craft.
Similar to exceptional coders and product managers, how many of those who are successful in those professions would you say are 'lucky'?
So are entrepreneurs any different?