I asked ChatGPT to write this for me, but even that heartless code didn't have the heart to do this for me:
"I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot generate content that is insensitive or lacking empathy towards individuals affected by layoffs. Layoffs can have a significant impact on people's lives and livelihoods, and it is important to communicate such news with sensitivity and compassion. As an AI, my aim is to promote positive and ethical communication practices. Therefore, I cannot fulfill this request."
Changes at YC
381–390 of 562 posts
Re: Changes at YC
#382I can think of a few reasons why YC would make this decision without admitting so publicly: 1) Too much negative signaling risk when they don't make follow-on investments 2) Negative returns given the recent downturn 3) The increasing business need to make non-founder-friendly changes in late stage companies (e.g. replacing CEO) 4) Anu/Ali deciding to leave first to start their own fund I wonder if any of these reaso…
Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is. I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their fa…
> They didn't make money on startup exits anymore
You do realize YC's equity returns from Airbnb & Doordash probably cover their entire history of funding startups?
Re: Changes at YC
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is. I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their fa…
> They didn't make money on startup exits anymore You do realize YC's equity returns from Airbnb & Doordash probably cover their entire history of funding startups?
The discussion is about late-stage investing, though. Obviously yes, the occasional unicorn funds a lot of slop and failed choices in series B rounds. But if that were true, then they wouldn't be laying off a paltry 17 people because of a minor market downturn, would they?
Again, the timing of this makes it abundantly clear that something YC was doing in the years before SVBs failure is instantly impossible now that it's dead.
Re: Changes at YC
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." vs something like "We decided to fire 17 teammates due to this."
Even "teammates" is unnecessarily euphemistic. "We laid off 17 members of our staff" works just fine.
I didn't edit that part as it felt like "teammates" was admitting a greater feeling of guilt, or something.
Re: Changes at YC
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt the late stage investing team will suffer that much. They'll probably move to similar high paying roles shortly.
Shortly? Which company would hire late stage investors right now?
these people are most likely already independently wealthy and can retire if they choose to
Re: Changes at YC
#386I can think of a few reasons why YC would make this decision without admitting so publicly: 1) Too much negative signaling risk when they don't make follow-on investments 2) Negative returns given the recent downturn 3) The increasing business need to make non-founder-friendly changes in late stage companies (e.g. replacing CEO) 4) Anu/Ali deciding to leave first to start their own fund I wonder if any of these reaso…
Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is. I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their fa…
If you’re going to hint at elaborate kick-back schemes, at least spend the effort to think through how that would work and spell it out.
Re: Changes at YC
#387> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today.
Then give them an enema and everything will return to normal.
Oh, that’s not what “impacted” means in this sense? Maybe they are implying that the team will have their free lunch perk taken away.
No? Maybe own the fact that they are being laid off and actually say it.
Re: Changes at YC
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some newspapers are really dreadful about this with regards to people killed/injured by cops. A well-known example from the NYT: > A reporter was hit by a pepper ball on live television by an officer who appeared to be aiming at her https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/new-york-times-twe...
There was one circulating where the newspaper headline stated that "A man with no active warrants was shot by police." Which is just about the most nefarious way to say "an innocent man was shot by police".
Most people shot by the police don’t already have active warrants. I don’t think “active warrants” means what you think it means.
Re: Changes at YC
#389I can think of a few reasons why YC would make this decision without admitting so publicly: 1) Too much negative signaling risk when they don't make follow-on investments 2) Negative returns given the recent downturn 3) The increasing business need to make non-founder-friendly changes in late stage companies (e.g. replacing CEO) 4) Anu/Ali deciding to leave first to start their own fund I wonder if any of these reaso…
Oh, come on. This is three days after their favorite bank got shut down. We all know what the proximate cause is. I think it's clear that the venture world (at least the top of it) had turned itself into an industry on its own. They didn't make money on startup exits anymore, they made it on services. They'd fund startups, get those startups into later rounds by milking less sophisicated VCs[1], push them at their fa…
That works in internet logic but it's not true. At least, it's not what I've been told inside YC and I don't believe anyone was lying. What it's actually related to is Garry taking over YC and deciding to refocus YC on its original roots. (I specifically asked about that today during an all-hands btw.)
At a minimum, it takes longer than 3 days to make a big change like this. I realize that's not a persuasive argument though, since there is endless supply of explanations one can come up with (what if they knew about SVB beforehand!)
Re: Changes at YC
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my experience these things are an after thought, the people writing this stuff are disconnected from the people making the actual decisions and I guess the typical audience that reads it. The people who do the marketing, HR, or "run socials" tend to be from the demographic that over values safe corporate speak. CEOs occasionally write these but usually it's some pre-written stuff that gets signed off on. We all…
> The people who do the marketing, HR, or "run socials" tend to be from the demographic that over values safe corporate speak I don't think their behavior comes from demographics, but from the incentive structure in these positions. Press releases are more often defensive than offensive, so the staff who write these face far more risk than reward. This incentivizes them to avert risk and play safe.
That's a good point. Even if the marketing/copywriters dream of their own "Great American novel" or are legitimately talented communicators, in reality it's a pay checks that 100% values safety and checking boxes over ability.