4 ms·

If you had the ability to pick the top 46, why did you fund 84 in the first place? (Not doubting, honestly curious.)

• pg 14y ago
  Between batches we spent a lot of time systematically trying to identify the predictors of failure. Previously we only tried to look for predictors of success. And they are not simply complements.
  • herdrick 14y ago
    they are not simply complements. Which argues against this change, right? If you think the next Dropbox could have some red flags along with its positive signs, you'd want to mostly ignore red flags.
    • pg 14y ago
      Somewhat. Depends how good the predictors of failures are. If they're strong enough, it doesn't matter how many promising signs there are. But you're right that this is a perilous move. We only did it because we had to, and I'd like to edge back toward our old approach now that we can scale better. We'll probably always have a tighter filter than we used to, though, if only because some of the techniques we learned for predicting failure seem very useful.
      • herdrick 14y ago
        OK, glad to hear it.
      • mlchild 14y ago
        Is there an essay coming on your new findings? Not to pry but "How Not to Die" is one of my all-time favorites.