4 ms·
From your previous letter: "We rejected a lot of proposals [...] because the project seemed too big to start on only three months of funding." All your non-def
by freax 18y ago
From your previous letter: "We rejected a lot of proposals [...] because the project seemed too big to start on only three months of funding."
All your non-defunct fundees are still "building", but that's not the same as accepting groups you know are going to take two years and a lot more funding right at the outset.
As for caring about the founders/investing in people instead of ideas, that doesn't hold up for several reasons: 1) If you really end up changing the idea so often anyway, as often claimed, the idea proposed wouldn't be grounds for rejection if the founders were otherwise good; 2) Many founders don't have track records, thus you have nothing to judge them on; 3) Some applicants do have track records, but you reject them without reviewing the stuff they've done due to lack of time or other reasons.
- pg 18y agoThat sentence isn't in the most recent emails. I took it out precisely because it's no longer true. It was in the rejection email we sent the first summer, and as often happens with text you rarely look at, it stayed around after it had become false. And by building, I meant two years to launch. There's a startup we funded two years ago that's launching in late spring or early summer.
- freax 18y agoIt still doesn't make sense. You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria; but there's a startup you funded two years ago that has yet to launch. Well, you can't use them as an example of your foresight if they accidentally slipped through your filter, or if they accidentally ended up taking much longer than expected. Fo' shizzle, G. It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a recycled one, which wasn't even accurate!
- pg 18y agoYou say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria The first batch was in the summer of 2005.
- freax 18y agoI forgot it was 2008. Cripes, I'm getting old.
- brlewis 18y agoProbably not. I turned 40 last month. I find that I'm much less likely to write the wrong year on my checks than I was 10 years ago. When you're younger, what year it is seems permanent, hard to change. Later you're no more likely to forget what year it is than you are to forget what month it is.
- Xichekolas 18y agoHeck, I'm only 24 and I was just noticing that the other day. I remember when I was in second grade, and the year switched, I put the wrong year for months. Now the turning of a year just doesn't seem that momentous anymore. I wonder why time seems to accelerate as we age. Is it because we are more busy, and hence spend less time being bored? Or is it somehow related to the fact that any given year's memories are an ever shrinking percentage of my overall memory store? If I were rich I would study people's perception of time, because it seems so non-linear.
- yters 18y agoI think it's largely the latter. When you have fewer memories, everything is newer, so each moment is more vivid. As time seems to slow when we have adrenaline rushes, the same with vivid experiences.
- stopdevil 18y agohttp://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jmkenney/ http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jmkenney/
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]