>As I said before, nobody has a right to YC funding. Their money, their choice. They don't have to give a logical reason; they don't have to give a reason at al

>As I said before, nobody has a right to YC funding. Their money, their choice. They don't have to give a logical reason; they don't have to give a reason at all. They could choose among applicants by throwing darts, and nobody would have any right to complain. Who is complaining? Obviously YC can do whatever with its money. It doesn't even need to be said, let alone, twice. >Of course, choosing by throwing darts wouldn't work well, which is why YC doesn't do it. But what they do do, including the "Social Radar", does appear to work well, even if no one can construct a logical argument for why it does. Right, so as far as anyone on the outside can tell, YC operates on a type of magic oracle. >You didn't use the word first, but you are treating YC's process as though the word was appropriate. My only point here is that the essays describe YC as essentially a magic process. The person I was responding to tried to make an analogy to the "lady of justice", while simultaneously making a claim to objectivity (in addition to others). My sentences with containing or referring to "lady" (including my comment about punishment) were only in response to that person's claims. Those sentences contain no information about what I think about YC's process (or rather, it's description in this essay).