3 ms·
Well, I thought the main point she was raising (perhaps muddled by her own writing) was simply that PG's assertion that YC does in fact improve your odds by X%
by jeremytliles 18y ago
Well, I thought the main point she was raising (perhaps muddled by her own writing) was simply that PG's assertion that YC does in fact improve your odds by X% might not be true, and even if it is true, you may have other means--that have no equity cost--to realize the same benefits that YC offers.
Totally agree about her book: the subject (the entrepreneurs) is quite interesting, but she gets in her own way with her poor writing ability (and where the hell was her editor, or don't those exist anymore?) She also seems to pretty much take her interviewees at face value.
It is a bit ironic that on her blog post she mentions she wouldn't be where she is today if she had gone to journalism school; um, yes, it's entirely possible she might have become an actual journalist.
- keating 18y ago> It is a bit ironic that on her blog post she mentions she wouldn't be where she is today if she had gone to journalism school; A forum for entrepreneurs who largely bypassed college is hardly the place to get snarky about formal education.
- ojbyrne 18y agoDead on with "pretty much take her interviewees at face value." I'm described in the book as "not willing to work for stock" (re: digg). Not sure who made that up, but she made no attempt to verify it with me. If she had, I would have told her that it wasn't in any way true. There is a paragraph in the book where she talks about "founders' mythology" that I guess functions as a disclaimer of sorts. It should have been included on the dust jacket.