3 ms·

Its a silly comparison to make in the first place. The goal of SBIR is to give out a certain portion of the federal budget to small business. Its a great prog

by rjurney 17y ago

Its a silly comparison to make in the first place. The goal of SBIR is to give out a certain portion of the federal budget to small business. Its a great program. As to ROI: federal funding for R&D provided the entire basis for the early economy of silicon valley in which YC resides. No programs like these = no silicon valley = no YC. YC is the ROI on federal R&D dollars :)

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pg 17y ago
It was not merely a silly comparison, but a deliberately dishonest one. Reddit is one of 144 startups we've funded. It's also false that federal R&D funding was the "entire basis" for Silicon Valley. And false that YC is a product of Silicon Valley. In fact, it's hard to find much that you've said that isn't false.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
  Deliberately dishonest? I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. The DARPA:Internet YC:Reddit comparison is about as useful as stating the number of startups you've funded -- none of this data is sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusion. Techniques for comparison that may provide some utility: investment efficiency, total investment adjusted for duration of program, applicants per dollar invested, and so on. I am surprised that you are engaging in a debate about the relative influence of DARPA funding and YC. It seems like comparing Apples to Filesystems.
  - pg 17y ago
    I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. Here's how I do it: I look for someone who seems to be trying to score rhetorical points, and then I ask what the chances are that happened by accident. When people are earnestly but confusedly trying to work something out for themselves, they don't sound like this: DARPA birthed the Internet. YC birthed reddit. I guess the jury is still out.
    - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
      If the person errantly assumes that the best metric to evaluate the programs is by an unadjusted comparison of their most recognizable achievement (which is simple, obvious, and wrong) then I can see how they would make a point similar to the one above. I do not believe that malice is required for shallow exploration of the problem set in this way. The sarcasm is petty, but it may follow from the earlier error. So the issue in this case is wether the sarcasm follows from the errant logical conclusion or wether a malicious intent inspired the faulty logic and bad attitude. As the righteous are often petty, I cannot discern if the error is deliberately dishonest or negligently shallow and intentionally righteous. Either way, I agree that it is a terrible argument and a worse comment.
      - rjurney 17y ago
        Frankly, I'm having trouble taking either of you seriously. The comment was a silly one, but clearly the ego of Paul Graham cannot handle jest that compares YC unfavorably with the invention of the wheel.
        gruseom 17y ago
        The original comment seemed more belittling than frivolous. As for ego, I don't have a window into anyone else's psyche (do you?), but can think of an easy explanation that has nothing to do with ego: YC is a business. It would be irresponsible not to defend one's business against false or disparaging statements. Beyond that, it's important to hold the discourse to a certain standard; we have many examples of the pestilence that befalls online communities where this isn't actively done. (Your comment wouldn't raise an eyebrow in many of these places, but it was locally acidic.) IMO PG does a pretty good job of pushing back on this kind of thing while at the same time letting reasonable criticism have free rein. That's a hard balance to strike and not likely how a runaway ego would go about things.

by rjurney 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pg 17y ago

It was not merely a silly comparison, but a deliberately dishonest one. Reddit is one of 144 startups we've funded. It's also false that federal R&D funding was the "entire basis" for Silicon Valley. And false that YC is a product of Silicon Valley. In fact, it's hard to find much that you've said that isn't false.

aaronblohowiak 17y ago
Deliberately dishonest? I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. The DARPA:Internet YC:Reddit comparison is about as useful as stating the number of startups you've funded -- none of this data is sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusion. Techniques for comparison that may provide some utility: investment efficiency, total investment adjusted for duration of program, applicants per dollar invested, and so on. I am surprised that you are engaging in a debate about the relative influence of DARPA funding and YC. It seems like comparing Apples to Filesystems.
- pg 17y ago
  I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. Here's how I do it: I look for someone who seems to be trying to score rhetorical points, and then I ask what the chances are that happened by accident. When people are earnestly but confusedly trying to work something out for themselves, they don't sound like this: DARPA birthed the Internet. YC birthed reddit. I guess the jury is still out.
  - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    If the person errantly assumes that the best metric to evaluate the programs is by an unadjusted comparison of their most recognizable achievement (which is simple, obvious, and wrong) then I can see how they would make a point similar to the one above. I do not believe that malice is required for shallow exploration of the problem set in this way. The sarcasm is petty, but it may follow from the earlier error. So the issue in this case is wether the sarcasm follows from the errant logical conclusion or wether a malicious intent inspired the faulty logic and bad attitude. As the righteous are often petty, I cannot discern if the error is deliberately dishonest or negligently shallow and intentionally righteous. Either way, I agree that it is a terrible argument and a worse comment.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Frankly, I'm having trouble taking either of you seriously. The comment was a silly one, but clearly the ego of Paul Graham cannot handle jest that compares YC unfavorably with the invention of the wheel.
      - gruseom 17y ago
        The original comment seemed more belittling than frivolous. As for ego, I don't have a window into anyone else's psyche (do you?), but can think of an easy explanation that has nothing to do with ego: YC is a business. It would be irresponsible not to defend one's business against false or disparaging statements. Beyond that, it's important to hold the discourse to a certain standard; we have many examples of the pestilence that befalls online communities where this isn't actively done. (Your comment wouldn't raise an eyebrow in many of these places, but it was locally acidic.) IMO PG does a pretty good job of pushing back on this kind of thing while at the same time letting reasonable criticism have free rein. That's a hard balance to strike and not likely how a runaway ego would go about things.