> I don’t think PG is in a good position to understand those constraints and anxieties. And he is somewhat incentivized not to, since YC benefits from having mo

> I don’t think PG is in a good position to understand those constraints and anxieties. And he is somewhat incentivized not to, since YC benefits from having more startups to choose from. But YC does not experience significant downside on the startups that they reject or which fail. Unlike: the founders of those failed startups. Exactly. And I have been avoiding saying this but keep in mind that from what I remember PG got the idea for YC when he was 'walking through Harvard Yard with Jessica'. https://www.fastcompany.com/3002810/aha-moments-made-paul-grahams-y-combinator-possible https://www.fastcompany.com/3002810/aha-moments-made-paul-gr... All VC's are like this by the way. Even though they know there is a great chance that many ideas they fund will not work they still push the investments because it's not their mess to cleanup. That said there is actually probably more downside for employees. After all a founder with a big startup failure has been marked as someone 'in the mix' and can usually parlay that to other opportunities. Look at even Sam Altman and what happened after Loopt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt Then he goes on having made his mark to running YC.