With 25 categories, their cost to saying "we'd like YC to help end global warming" is zero. As the world's leading early-stage investment vehicle, the cost to them leaving out, say, adtech is also zero: the same people will apply either way.
That's true, I just disagree with how you framed it. Some people may genuinely be inspired by it, and some good can genuinely come out of it, even if it "costs zero"
Technically you aren't false, this could be just a PR thing, but why would you assume that?
"YC requests these startups because they want these startups" is a much simpler explanation than "YC requests these startups as a marketing ploy".
I don't see a good reason to be so skeptical, so I will go ahead and take this post at face value.
Obviously everyone should think for themselves, and if your startup doesn't fit these categories you should apply anyway (as the article says). I'm just saying that assuming they're being honest here is valuable to me, as a guideline for thinking about startup ideas and YC's vision for the future.
Dismissing this stuff (without a good, specific argument) would hurt more than it helps.
> "There's not much point in debating it. If you have a good idea in almost any field, they're going to consider it."
And I read them as basically saying (a) if you're working on something cool that's not on this list, don't let that prevent you from applying as it's likely not a list of criteria; and (b) while it might be a jumping off point for conversation, it's likely missing the intent if you spend much time criticizing what's omitted and included.
Cynicism would be saying, "pff, a YC startup couldn't actually do anything about global warming". Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't; if you can figure out how, maybe you should apply to YC. But either way, the question is irrelevant because YC has good reasons to include it in their RFS anyway, so now we can stop wasting our time arguing about it on HN.