4 ms·

> The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in positio

> The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of protection (by anonymity) that is not afforded to those whom they have power upon. If the author hadn't posted about this experience, no one at YC would've made a public post saying they interviewed him. Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny."

ronilan 7y ago
> Indeed, that would be a bit on the weird side if YC made a post saying "we spoke to someone from Checkly, his sense of humor was kinda funny." Weird is in the eye of the beholder. I personally would love to see publicly something like “Me and Paul (and/or Paul) reviewed Ron’s application in 2010 and decided not to invite him to an interview because of XYZ”. It’ll be entertaining. Edit: actually maybe it was in 2011. Damn, that was a long time ago.
- Schoolmeister 7y ago
  Not sure if you meant it that way, but this comment comes across as very bitter.
  - ronilan 7y ago
    Bitter times? For sure. Very. (Not because of YC though. It was already a mess, why would they want to touch it?) (BTW there was Can’t Wait at YC S11) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-backed-cant-wait-is-a-mobile-social-network-for-movie-trailers/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/yc-ba... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905104
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]