3 ms·

There is a part in the Netflix culture doc where it talks about how sometimes people do bad things, and Netflix tries to not overcorrect by implementing burdens

There is a part in the Netflix culture doc where it talks about how sometimes people do bad things, and Netflix tries to not overcorrect by implementing burdensome policies on the company as a knee-jerk reaction to a single bad actor. The conclusion (YC's brand has been tarnished because of the lower quality companies in their larger batches who do bad things) doesn't follow from the evidence of this ONE company doing something that people could view as a low integrity move. This exact situation could have occurred even if they kept their acceptance rates, and cohorts, incredibly small. There can always be bad actors (not saying this company is a bad actor though). I think you wanted to share your conclusion, even if the available evidence didn't necessarily support your claim.

sneak 2y ago
“It takes two points to establish a line, and three for a curve.”
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bko 2y ago
I think the bigger issue is that the main signal to YC (and other elite institutions) is the acceptance rate (<1%). That's probably the #1 thing people know about YC. A lot of people try to get in, and few do. The main criticism I have of YC is their constants chants of "everyone should apply!". Here is what you commonly hear: YC: You should apply to YC! Person: But I don’t have a product YC: You should still apply, we let in a lot of people with just an idea! Person: But I don’t have a co-founder YC: You should still apply, successful solo founders have made it into the program! Person: But I [perfectly valid reason not to waste your time] YC: You should still apply! Person: Wow, you’re being very encouraging, does this means I have a chance to get in? YC: Almost certainly not! At a certain point, I can't really take the org's mission in good faith with this kind of messaging. They want a high application rate, a low acceptance rate (even with bigger batch sizes). Just infinite optionality and founders being strung along. I wrote more about it in a blog post https://mleverything.substack.com/p/dont-play-status-games https://mleverything.substack.com/p/dont-play-status-games
- jedberg 2y ago
  The reason they want you to apply is twofold -- the application itself is a good exercise in getting you to think about things you should be thinking about. Honestly even if you have no intention at all of applying to YC you should still fill out the application for yourself, it makes you think about important things. And the second reason is that they get to see as many options as possible, because that's obviously better for them. If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. It has nothing to do with "juicing the numbers".
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. Would it? With numbers that large, how could anyone possibly do a meaningful comparison and pick out the twenty or thirty or fifty that would get in? In other words, if it's obvious to everybody that you are getting too many applications to meaningfully evaluate all of them, they everybody knows that you are not meaningfully evaluating all of them. You're applying some kind of mindless algorithmic filter to narrow down the possibilities. But that's not YC's brand. YC's brand is providing meaningful evaluation of startups. Once that brand is undermined, it's gone.
    - light_hue_1 2y ago
      This is true of all top universities too. We get so many applications for grad school that we could admit several classes and not lose any quality. But I would never discourage anyone from applying. Even if the quality is high, having many applicants gives you good 2nd order choices. This depends on what mix of things you care about from DEI, to looking at specific ideas like the YC calls, to hedging across different markets, to building a portfolio that balances short term wins vs. long term hard tech, maybe some fraction you optimize for publicity, or legacies, etc. So yes, encouraging applications is the smart move even if by your primary metric you can't distinguish between the top folks anymore.
      - pdonis 2y ago
foldr 2y ago
I don't think the main issue here is that a YC company acted with questionable ethics. As you say, people are people and that can happen with even the strictest due diligence. The problem for YC's prestige stems from funding a company with an unoriginal idea and not even the beginnings of a prototype. I'm aware that YC funds founders more than it funds specific ideas or projects. Nonetheless, you'd expect an impressive group of founders to do more than just fork an existing open source project. In short, cases like this show that YC is getting (non-illegally) scammed by some of its applicants. That makes YC look foolish.
- mattcantstop 2y ago
  Even the evidence listed (the retweeted tweet in the article) doesn't support the claim of the author to me. If you open source software and give it a license that permits commercial use on top of it, then you are okay with that use. If I was a cohort of a team that built an open sourced AI editor I would think they would WANT me to build on top of it. Otherwise, why permit that use? They may have a bad business model, where their business does not work if they open source their tech and other companies build competitors on top of it. But that's a questions for them and their decision to open source. But it doesn't seem shady to use open source software from another company that permits commercial use.
  - foldr 2y ago
    The point of my comment is that the alleged shadiness is largely irrelevant, so I'm not sure what you response is directed at.

sneak 2y ago

“It takes two points to establish a line, and three for a curve.”

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bko 2y ago

I think the bigger issue is that the main signal to YC (and other elite institutions) is the acceptance rate (<1%). That's probably the #1 thing people know about YC. A lot of people try to get in, and few do. The main criticism I have of YC is their constants chants of "everyone should apply!". Here is what you commonly hear: YC: You should apply to YC! Person: But I don’t have a product YC: You should still apply, we let in a lot of people with just an idea! Person: But I don’t have a co-founder YC: You should still apply, successful solo founders have made it into the program! Person: But I [perfectly valid reason not to waste your time] YC: You should still apply! Person: Wow, you’re being very encouraging, does this means I have a chance to get in? YC: Almost certainly not! At a certain point, I can't really take the org's mission in good faith with this kind of messaging. They want a high application rate, a low acceptance rate (even with bigger batch sizes). Just infinite optionality and founders being strung along. I wrote more about it in a blog post https://mleverything.substack.com/p/dont-play-status-games https://mleverything.substack.com/p/dont-play-status-games

jedberg 2y ago
The reason they want you to apply is twofold -- the application itself is a good exercise in getting you to think about things you should be thinking about. Honestly even if you have no intention at all of applying to YC you should still fill out the application for yourself, it makes you think about important things. And the second reason is that they get to see as many options as possible, because that's obviously better for them. If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. It has nothing to do with "juicing the numbers".
- pdonis 2y ago
  > If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. Would it? With numbers that large, how could anyone possibly do a meaningful comparison and pick out the twenty or thirty or fifty that would get in? In other words, if it's obvious to everybody that you are getting too many applications to meaningfully evaluate all of them, they everybody knows that you are not meaningfully evaluating all of them. You're applying some kind of mindless algorithmic filter to narrow down the possibilities. But that's not YC's brand. YC's brand is providing meaningful evaluation of startups. Once that brand is undermined, it's gone.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    This is true of all top universities too. We get so many applications for grad school that we could admit several classes and not lose any quality. But I would never discourage anyone from applying. Even if the quality is high, having many applicants gives you good 2nd order choices. This depends on what mix of things you care about from DEI, to looking at specific ideas like the YC calls, to hedging across different markets, to building a portfolio that balances short term wins vs. long term hard tech, maybe some fraction you optimize for publicity, or legacies, etc. So yes, encouraging applications is the smart move even if by your primary metric you can't distinguish between the top folks anymore.
    - pdonis 2y ago

foldr 2y ago

I don't think the main issue here is that a YC company acted with questionable ethics. As you say, people are people and that can happen with even the strictest due diligence. The problem for YC's prestige stems from funding a company with an unoriginal idea and not even the beginnings of a prototype. I'm aware that YC funds founders more than it funds specific ideas or projects. Nonetheless, you'd expect an impressive group of founders to do more than just fork an existing open source project. In short, cases like this show that YC is getting (non-illegally) scammed by some of its applicants. That makes YC look foolish.

mattcantstop 2y ago
Even the evidence listed (the retweeted tweet in the article) doesn't support the claim of the author to me. If you open source software and give it a license that permits commercial use on top of it, then you are okay with that use. If I was a cohort of a team that built an open sourced AI editor I would think they would WANT me to build on top of it. Otherwise, why permit that use? They may have a bad business model, where their business does not work if they open source their tech and other companies build competitors on top of it. But that's a questions for them and their decision to open source. But it doesn't seem shady to use open source software from another company that permits commercial use.
- foldr 2y ago
  The point of my comment is that the alleged shadiness is largely irrelevant, so I'm not sure what you response is directed at.