3 ms·

Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your ar

by pc 13y ago

Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your argument is off-base -- there's some plausible justification for it. But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However, it's a ship that sailed a long time ago. (Colleges, for e.g.) Given that we effectively permit universities to pick hundreds of thousands of visa recipients every year, experimenting with 100 for entrepreneurship seems not insane. * (So will Stripe!)

teacup50 13y ago
Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data. [edit] The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor oligarchical corruption -- an outlook that isn't improved by your referencing their importance to success.
- pc 13y ago
  Well, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had only funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems like the right default. > The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. I don't think Sam's argument is quite as self-serving, though I see how it could be interpreted this way. I think he'd agree that YC should not be a gatekeeper. (As in PG's original proposal.) But if the argument against the original proposal is that we somehow need more data before rolling it out everywhere, running a smaller experiment with YC would seem to be better than nothing at all. I completely agree with you that a steady-state world of privileged visa-granters is not what we should be trying to bring about.
  - teacup50 13y ago
    > ... trusting them seems like the right default. Wouldn't objective analysis be the right default, rather than trusting those that were successful within an organization that has incentives that are, in the majority, contrary if not in outright competition, to your own? YC isn't a charity, as I'm sure you're aware, and success is not guaranteed. They're in the business of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Nobody wants to be the spaghetti that doesn't stick, but the vast majority will be, and it's in YC's interests to keep convincing new people to jump in the pot. So no, I don't trust them, or their motives, or think that it's to the benefit of anyone other than YC to grant them special immigration privileges. I certainly don't think outlier examples justify or prove YC's value to the American people, or to foreign citizens who might wish to pursue their interests here.
acslater00 13y ago
I completely respect that, and I'm certainly not about to argue with a YC alum about the value of YC on the YC community forum. But there is a world of difference between trading equity for mentorship vs trading equity for a visa [+ mentorship]. It will obviously never happen, but if it did the program would be unrecognizable.
- pc 13y ago
  Yeah, that dynamic would be concerning. Having only YC issue the visas would be much worse than having a broader entrepreneurship visa.

by pc 13y ago

teacup50 13y ago

Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data. [edit] The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor oligarchical corruption -- an outlook that isn't improved by your referencing their importance to success.

pc 13y ago
Well, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had only funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems like the right default. > The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. I don't think Sam's argument is quite as self-serving, though I see how it could be interpreted this way. I think he'd agree that YC should not be a gatekeeper. (As in PG's original proposal.) But if the argument against the original proposal is that we somehow need more data before rolling it out everywhere, running a smaller experiment with YC would seem to be better than nothing at all. I completely agree with you that a steady-state world of privileged visa-granters is not what we should be trying to bring about.
- teacup50 13y ago
  > ... trusting them seems like the right default. Wouldn't objective analysis be the right default, rather than trusting those that were successful within an organization that has incentives that are, in the majority, contrary if not in outright competition, to your own? YC isn't a charity, as I'm sure you're aware, and success is not guaranteed. They're in the business of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Nobody wants to be the spaghetti that doesn't stick, but the vast majority will be, and it's in YC's interests to keep convincing new people to jump in the pot. So no, I don't trust them, or their motives, or think that it's to the benefit of anyone other than YC to grant them special immigration privileges. I certainly don't think outlier examples justify or prove YC's value to the American people, or to foreign citizens who might wish to pursue their interests here.

acslater00 13y ago

I completely respect that, and I'm certainly not about to argue with a YC alum about the value of YC on the YC community forum. But there is a world of difference between trading equity for mentorship vs trading equity for a visa [+ mentorship]. It will obviously never happen, but if it did the program would be unrecognizable.

pc 13y ago
Yeah, that dynamic would be concerning. Having only YC issue the visas would be much worse than having a broader entrepreneurship visa.