Paul Graham is too arrogant | Hacker News Reader

Paul Graham is too arrogant

livinginfirstlife.wordpress.com

23 pointsinfirstlive65 comments

I posted the following comment in defense of my co-founder Wayne:

Jay,

It is supremely unfair of you to characterize my co-founder as irresponsible, selfish, and ruining his family.

I have never met a man who loves his wife more than Wayne. He and his wife reached a decision together that the best thing for their family and their future was for him to come start a company. Your post makes it sound as if he snuck over the fence in the middle of the night.

It is one thing to attack a business, or even to attack the visible leader of said business. But to slander a good hard working father, husband, and friend is criminal. You owe him a public apology.

Sincerely, Robby Walker

EDIT: it appears he listened - the language has been softened a bit and he apologized.

Essay comes off as a poorly written rant. However, there is a sliver of truth there; PG would benefit from a little more humility. So would the whole program, actually. It sometimes has a very "clubby" feel to it - you're either in, or you're not.

Even though this isn't a big issue now, it might benefit them to address it before YC gets a reputation of arrogance. This is especially important, given YC essentially bashes a thousand egos a year. Even if 1% of those guys start blogs like this, that's bad news.

Can you give me an example of something YC does that seems clubby, and that we could do differently to cure that?

The problem is that success makes other people feel bad, and so even neutral statements get interpreted in the worst possible way, and of course it also attracts haters (such as this 'livinginfirstlife' guy), who will repaint everything to look bad.

This was certainly the experience at Google. I don't think that there is necessarily a solution, though it helps to avoid things that could be misinterpreted, even though that also means avoiding some aspects of the truth unfortunately.

"The problem is that success makes other people feel bad"

It's more that success attracts attention, some fraction of attention will always be negative, and the haters tend to scream louder than the likers. I'm still a loyal GMail user, I still visit Reddit frequently, and (despite some quibbles and a rejection) I generally think YCombinator's done a lot of good for the startup community. But you don't hear from folks like me often: we're happy, the software does what we want it to, so we have little reason to speak up. Folks with a gripe, however, are willing to put countless hours into venting their spleen.

That was one of the reasons I left FictionAlley (a non-profit Harry Potter fanfiction archive). 99% of users were very appreciative of what we did. However, 1% were not, and the 1% took up about 80% of our time and attention. When you're not being paid for your work (FA was all-volunteer), 80% is far too much time to spend on people with massive entitlement complexes.

(There's perhaps a lesson for prospective founders here: build anything worth visiting, and people will hate you for it. Not a lot, and not nearly as many as it seems, but you better be prepared for it and willing to put it in perspective.)

The latest fad in business now seems to be "fire your customers" - get rid of the 1% that soaks up 80% of your attention, so you can better serve the 99% that actually appreciate what you do. I dunno if that's applicable to YC; probably not, since they "fire" 95% of their customers simply through lack of resources and the haters come from the people who're not doing business with them anyways. Ironic, that is...

I think it is also important to note that, on the internet, it is easy to misinterpret intention. The same sentence can have almost opposite meaning, depending on the context you read it and the mood you are in when you do. It is especially difficult if you read sound bytes, which are usually taken out of context in the first place.

I think you'll have a hard time curbing this sentiment because it's a time constraint issue. At some point you have to be exclusionary and focus on a smaller group.

There is a necessary and clear delineation between who is part of YC and who is not. Naturally, people who are not part of the group are liable to feel left out.

In terms of your treatment of the rest of us however, it strikes me as a real stretch to complain. News.yc is a huge step in terms of general community outreach and so far every time I've contacted someone from YC or a YC startup they've definitely been receptive.

So, while I understand Sam's point, I doubt anything can or should be done about it.

I didn't realize you had a five-minute rule. The exploding termsheet is back in style for the worst valley B and C-list VC dinks.

edit: I'm not saying YC are dinks, but that practice in the valley is very popular amongst the investors you want to avoid.

It's more like a two week rule. We give groups we invite to interviews all the deal terms two weeks in advance. So when we tell them we want to fund them, we expect them to have already made up their minds if they want to accept.

Avoid public statements about how great YC is, how much it improves the average outcome for a startup (unless you can back it up with hard numbers), and how people would be stupid not to accept it. People who would be interested in YC already know that. People who wouldn't be aren't going to change their minds because you say so.

I think YC's already doing as much as they realistically can to be inclusive, given their business model. News.YC, the Startup School, and Founders at Work were great steps forwards in that regard. But you're fundamentally limited by time and attention, so there will always be people left out. No need to make them feel even worse about not getting into YC.

I think nostrademons got it spot-on: Avoid public statements about how great YC is

It is true, YC offers a great value. In my opinion, YC increases the expected return of a startup by 2-10x. But let others sing YC's praises - it will sound a lot better than if it's coming from the principals.

For example, this:

"Angels and VCs who don't go to this are missing some of the best innovations," says Ron Conway, the Valley's most celebrated angel investor.

Sounds a lot better than this:

When Graham calls the winners, the founders have only five minutes to accept. "If people turn us down," he says, "as far as we're concerned they've failed an IQ test."

Here's some other suggestions:

1: Like nostrademons already said, data that seems objective is good. Here's a test to find out if YC really does increase the expected return of startups by 2-10x: compare the stats (values if they're available, or maybe just alexa web traffic) of top 2n applicants from previous funding rounds (where n is the number funded in that round). I bet 90% of the most successful ones were YC funded.

If readers object to your sample selection, then use the entire population of applicants. My guess is that the majority of successful ones will still be those that were YC funded.

2: As an introvert (which I expect many of us are), I have had to come up with rules for social interaction. One is to ALWAYS credit others for my success. Nobody likes to hear "I'm so successful because of ME, and If you don't think so, you have a low IQ"

In YC's situation, you might consider spending more time stressing that YC's success is a function of the teams YC invests in, and even the support of the community that surrounds YC. Focus on how those around YC have played a part and its success.

2. News.YC, the Startup School, and Founders at Work were great steps forwards in that regard

These projects are very inclusive, and YC is being very generous by running them. Spend more time stressing these projects, instead of events that might appear more "clubby." For example, instead of talking about the attendees of founder dinners, talk about the fantastic speakers you got at the last startup school, and then mention that it's an event hosted for free by YC.

Maybe the founder's program was the focus of the article - and the writer wasn't interested in Startup School. In that case, when you talk about the founder dinners - stress that you cook them yourself. That's the kind of stuff people like to hear about.

It would have been pretty hard to avoid making that remark Steven Levy quoted. He hung out at YC over several months and I probably had 10 different conversations with him. It's hard to remain guarded for so long. How was I to know this would be the sentence that stuck in his head?

And then people will complain about how YC is so secretive. Frankly, there's no pleasing some people. If people didn't care for YC-specific statements, what are they doing reading this site?

Random, semi serious ideas, from someone who doesn't really notice or care if YC is "clubby":

- Sell YC.news t-shirts, or give some sort of 'make something people want' shirts that goes out to 1) random people on the news site, 2) top karma of the month, something like that...

- Open source the mechanical portions of YC. You obviously can't replicate your experience and time for the world to share in, but are there bits and pieces that could be spun out and made into templates to help those who aren't lucky enough to be able to apply/win a spot. Specifically, I'm thinking creation of the company itself, but perhaps there are other things.

Just some random thoughts...

My suggestion?

Paul and Paul, Robert, Jessica (and whoever else): Try to help each of us, here at news.YC - those who arent part of the elite club of YC funded startups.

I dont see any of you helping any of us (those not in the club).

What if NOBODY were to apply to YC - would you have this fame and book sales and NY Times interviews? No.

You owe your institutional success to us. You are standing on our shoulders.

Furthermore, the structure of news.YC is not conducive to the rest of us helping each other. (Nevertheless, I can say I received valuable input from dpapathanasiou, goladus, npk etc., and I tried to provide the same to whoever asked).

You have an elite samurai school with yourself as the master and the rejects hanging from the outside gates trying to peer in.

You can do whatever you want. But if you are disliked, it comes with the territory.

I had an intriguing thought today: we come to resemble those we demonize.

You loathe Bill Gates (in my book, he has reformed into a saint), but his early interviews...

There are far too many of us on the site for YC to help each and every one of us. That's what the YC admissions process is for: to cut the numbers down to a manageable group.

Speaking as a YC reject, I'd rather they limit the numbers and keep the quality up. PG et al aren't doing anyone any good if they "help" all 400 admitted startups but their help consists of a 3 sentence e-mail every month.

Also, they may owe their institutional success to "us", with "us" being the class of entrepreneurs, but they don't owe their success to any individual one of "us". I, for example, have done nothing to help YCombinator become successful except spending lots of time on Reddit, and there're thousands of other people who could make that claim.

Paul and Paul, Robert, Jessica (and whoever else) ... I dont see any of you helping any of us (those not in the club).

If you're going to demand that the principals of YC help you, you might start by getting their names right ;). They are (ordered by last name) Trevor, Paul, Jessica and Robert. I think you might be confusing YEurope (that also has a Paul) with YC.

Realistically, I don't think you can expect them to help us on an individual basis. They would receive no benefit from doing so, and it would just detract their time from the focus of YC.

"Maybe if you took time out of your day to email a principal and offer some equity in exchange for mentorship/help, you might get some."

Tried that, didn't work...

Sorry. I was thinking of Paul Buchheit. Isnt he part of YC?

I am not "demanding" they help me. It was simply an observation.

Frankly, I dont need their help in order to succeed. :)

Though I am grateful to PG for this forum, news.YC

I am waiting on Someone who is greater than all of them put together, to help me.

Personally, I would have very much appreciated a one or two-sentence personalized response to my rejected application. It can't be that hard to build that into the system, and although I have a decent guess as to why you didn't choose to fund my partner and I, a boilerplate rejection seemed kind of mean (even thought it was a very humble boilerplate rejection)...

Although I didn't apply, my guess is that this feedback would help tremendously. If implemented correctly, it might not even take much time.

The majority of applications were probably rejected for the same few reasons: talent, quality of app, quality of demo, hard to monetize, lack potential market, etc. Only in a minority of cases would YC have to actually write a sentence explaining why the app was rejected.

I'll tell you.

You ignore your public. You write technical essays about engineering or social things, but you never address the people you want working with you. You never write a blog entry that makes you (or any of the other founders) like real people who also care about those that are not as clever as the ones you pick.

So we sit out here on the curb and think - ah, the cool kids are in this lovely clubhouse with their mentor making cool stuff and going to become millionares. While we sit out here watching through the window.

All we see now is the business poker face of ycomb. It's no longer Paul giving money to kids to startup, it's a money making entity with a stern - you don't belong here, go away attitude.

That's why there is the minor backlash. You are too busy to talk straight to the normal people, and they resent being left out.

What can you do to change this? Try to be less perfect. Appearing vulnerable makes you human, and it makes people empathize with you. Then they make an effort to understand the why of your decisions.

YC make it clear that those that aren't picked may have the best ideas, or be the best people; i.e. that YC are perfect at picking.

It seems like you depend too much on YC's verdict as a judgement on yourself. If you had more deserved confidence in your own ability perhaps you'd see their actions differently?

pg's articles talk to "normal" people all the time.

"While we sit out here watching through the window."

There's nothing that stops you from making cool stuff while sitting outside on the grass. I was rejected by YC, but I just figure I need to work a little harder. YC is not the ultimate verdict on the success of your startup.

I hate to see these kinds of discussions happening now that YC is taking off in the press. YC puts out a lot of free content and value into the community already. Unfortunately YC does not scale well. And why should it? It was created at the pleasure of the former Viaweb team and JL.

From my limited perspective, the following is what I see as something that may help counter the feeling of exclusion.

In the community of PG followers there seems to be a desire to 'belong' somehow more officially, if nothing more than to make conversations easier. News.YC I think helps quite a bit, but when guys in this niche community have to describe themselves it often comes out like this:

"I really like to read Paul Graham's articles and talk with other guys that like to read his articles."

"I applied for YC and was rejected, but still like to associate with the other YC rejects."

Both of those general statements just sound pretty lame when you try to tell your girlfriend (imaginary or real ;) about this little club of startup guys you're involved in.

Despite it being totally arbitrary other than to just make conversations easier and reduce exclusionary feelings, it might be useful if there were a more defined way to refer to this yc-affiliated-but-not-officially-part-of-community-of -like-minded-startup-guys.

Then those in the community could refer to their involvement in terms that doesn't sound like a fan club and isn't focused on a failed YC application.

Ideas?

I just tell my wife that there's a lot of good knowledge and experience here to exploit, enough that it's well worth letting my own knowledge and wisdom be exploited in return.

As an outsider in the UK who has no intention of applying, I agree that there's a "clubby" feel to YC. However, I don't think that's a bad thing; that's part of the benefit of being in a good beneficial club, just like any society.

Cure it of that and it will be the lesser for it.

I am absolutely baffled as to how anyone could see YC as 'clubby', elitist, or whatever peoples' problem seems to be. Can anyone name another angel or VC firm that is more transparent than YC, or contributes more to the web startup world?

It seems like a number of people on here were staking the entire existence of their startup on YC funding - that's not an entrepreneurial attitude. If you have something worthwhile you'll build and launch it with or without YC.

Don't change a thing, Paul.

I only see unwarranted 'clubbiness' in the negative spaces- that is, in the supplicant/resented attitude of a minority of the people that didn't make the filter. I'm sure most of you understand that there is no room for all, and that the YCombinator folks are not taking anything from you by making others happy.

It's not like pg is rubbing it in your face either. He even went out of his way to write an it's-not-you-it's-me essay, to prevent applicants from taking the rejection personally.

Oh he actually wrote a "it's-not-you-it's-me essay", I actually didn't think he was arrogant, until you mentioned that. If that is true, then he really is arrogant.

Oops.. I was aiming for the cliche about the girl trying not to hurt her boyfriend when breaking up.

FWIW, this is the essay. Forget about my broken metaphor and just judge for yourself

http://www.paulgraham.com/judgement.html

If YC is doing anything wrong, it is that it is too transparent. Imagine if some of the top Wall St firms were as open about their business dealings. It would redefine the whole meaning of "Clubby".

What I find most amusing about this is guy is how he so passionately bashes Y Combinator on his blog, Techcrunch and probably any other form of medium he can get his hands on. Each time he argues how YC is worthless and irrelevant. The problem being that if YC is so irrelevant and pointless - why spend so much of your time and energy writing about it? I know my general approach to things I think are a waste of time is putting them to the side and spending my time on the things that are in my opinion. Since I value my time as a scarce resource I think that's a justified approach.

The logical assumption then is either:

1) "Livingfirstlife" doesn't actually consider YC to be so pointless as presumably if he genuinely believed that to be true, he wouldn't be so generous as to provide a stream of free PR.

2) He doesn't value his time particularly highly, in which case he's not exactly the type of person I'll be asking for startup advice anytime soon.

Perhaps one day he'll learn that childish tantrums aren't the most effective method for convincing people your point of view is correct.

Harj I'm a little confused. If you're someone that YC has invested in, why do you have so much spare time to argue with this guy? His tantrums aren't very childish and I think you're showing your lack of maturity by not presenting any general arguments. You clearly aren't valuing your time very highly either - you're just being hypocritical.

I've posted one techcrunch comment and one comment here disagreeing with him. That's a combined total of about 10 minutes of my time which in my view is justified use of it, as it was time spent defending an organization that has done nothing but provide me with a stream of endless opportunity.

pg, whatever you read into this rant, please don't let it make you go soft and pull your punches in essays, posts, talks or interviews. Most of your audience prefer your straight talk to mealy mouthed, watered down, PC blandspeak, even when you're wrong. And if destitution necessitated scurvy (out of all things......) turns out to be a huge problem amongst your founders, I suspect there are investors out there willing to come to the rescue, even at twice YC's valuations. No questions asked :).

PS: for those who find the IQ test comment arrogant; Paul Graham is just showing off his mastery of Cambridgeian lingo. Back there, saying someone has low IQ is short for saying they disagree with you. Nothing more, nothing less, and absolutely nothing to be all up in arms about.

Stuki and the rest of the YC defenders sound like bigger trolls than anyone else. You argue against arrogance but are arrogant enough to claim things like "Microsoft is dead" and "Paul Graham is God". Grow up.

It sounds like you've watched the Paul Graham late night infomercial "Get Rich in 10 Easy Steps" a few too many times.

"Paul Graham is just showing off his mastery of Cambridgeian lingo"

Technically, it's "Canterbridgian". ;-)

I guess the Newsweek article is bringing PG a lot of unwanted attention.

\ "there is no need for a marketing budget when youÂve got Internet word of mouth.Â Of course - build it and they will come right?

In PG's defense I don't think he meant to imply that if you build it they'll come. I think he was emphasising the power of Internet word of mouth for an Internet business as opposed to traditions marketing channels. BTW. It doesn't seem like the above quote was PG's, unless I'm mistaken.

That being said, the author made some valid points. For one, even if the YC hopefully know they gonna accept the offer even before applying, giving them 5 mins to respond, and then suggesting that anyone not responding within that time in unintelligent makes PG come of as arrogant, if not a bully.

Secondly, I don't think PG can be blamed for a YC founder's personal choice to leave his pregnant wife to pursue a startup (this is a far stretch from the true story) and poor dietary choices of YC founders.

Wow,

This guy's whole blog (not just the article) is based on bashing YC & YC funded companies. There are some valid cons to YC Funding: the funding comes at a low valuation, and it is scary to build a company without a clear path to monetization. But this guy basically repeats this over, and over, and over again. Don't expect any enlightenment. Lame.

Some comments on this thread were upvoted by several sockpuppet accounts at the same IP addr as infirstlive (including angelasimpson and hotstufff). There was also some sockpuppet downvoting of comments disagreeing with them. Seven of the upvotes on the link itself were from the same source. I've manually fixed the scores in a lot of the cases. Sorry, will add more anti-sockpuppet features in June.

I'd rather base my opinion of YCombinator on the opinions of those who have actually gone through the program and have an insight and perspective about the program that are much more objective than any outsider's. If there's anyone who'd claim that joining YCombinator is a stupid idea, it'd be those who were actually put through the process.

However, I do have to say, that being rejected from YC and being an outside observer, I do at times feel that YC itself seems to get a bit 'clubby.' One big reason for this feeling comes straight out of pure envy and jealousy for wanting to be a YC member. The other reason deals with the fact that I feel as if the connections/information gained through such a program are ones that no one on the outside has access to. So it's either you're in and you're connected, or you're out and left in the dark.

There were a couple YC members at the recent Boston startup meeting (Tsumoki was there, and I think Dropbox, and possibly one other that I didn't catch the name of)..They didn't seem clubby or standoffish at all. Really, they seemed like pretty approachable, frighteningly intelligent, and generally decent guys.

I like Paul. He is one of rare cases when an engineer, besides being good at what he does (engineering), on top of that also has business smarts and CAN WRITE. That is very refreshing after all this MBA BS in the mainstream media.

As an investor, however, PS and Co is not a very good fit for vast majority of engineers because... because they give you only what... 5K per founder? That is much less than good engineer's one month salary after-taxes. That limits his investments to trivial weekend projects completed by fresh college grads. It's the investment side of PG, that the blog post is bitching about.

I don't see what the point of complaining is, though. Everyone knows what the terms are, so do your own calculations, and if it's not worth it to you, don't apply.

I guess alot of people, including this guy, are openly questioning "validity" of YComb's startups. Since everything they do is so trivial, can their creations be considered "products with value"?

My personal issue with YComb's approach is that they actively (via this site, for instance) promote engineering mediocrity. Remember posts "PG made me drop out of college today!" ? I have seen several of those. Web 2.0 is all about this: cheap&quick high-school level programming project done over a weekend, polluted with google ads with mandatory "blog" attached to it.

To me that is sad, There is nothing "glamorous" about it. My major in school was AI, and our professor used to dream alot about more powerful hardware that was supposed to become a reality soon. Well, it became. And for what? To run 8 Mongrels with some quick&dirty Ruby scripts converting contents of 4 DB tables into nicely looking HTML with roundeed corners? What a waste...

Business does not equal mastery. if you complain about MBA BS then it should be obvious enough. The iPod was nothing new in terms of technical mastery. But it was innovative in terms of interface design, and a damn good example of successful marketing and integration into a whole product family; as such, it's also an innovation of process.

But does an iPod engineer understand any AI? Probably not. Steve Jobs made stupid comments in his presentations (still remember the "branch prediction... it predicts branches!"). But he has an eye for opportunities that not even your professor can boast having. If there's a market, and you know what it takes to supply it, supply it. In my view, YC is addressing this; it may saturate quickly, but the need obviously exists. If your expertise targets the extremely educated, by all means make something that satisfies them.

But don't forget that there are a lot of people to please. Just please the ones you understand, or think you do. I'm completely taken aback by twitter's success, but hey, people use it, what can I say.

It's all about opportunity costs. Neither the world, nor Linus would probably be better off had he started a company rather than hacking on Linux. The world, and PG, are probably better off that he pursued Viaweb rather than some earlier version of Arc. But it's ultimately up the individual to choose what they want most. This site and PG certainly promote one route, but sensible people realize it's not the only thing out there.

I read raves about Yahoo Store long before I ever heard of Viaweb or PG. If a best-of-breed web app used by thousands of businesses is a "crappy start-up", we need more crappy start-ups. I think he forgot an S -- they were Scrappy.

On a side note, what is the problem at Justin.tv, if there is one? The article mentioned that it is in free fall - really?

Justin.tv page seems to not work in Firefox anymore, so I couldn't see any announcements they might have made on their web page.

If he gets rich, they won't call it "arrogance". People would call Steve Jobs arrogant (based on his public statements) if he weren't so damn successful.

Historically the companies that bragged before they were successful imploded the fastest.

this guy killed his credibility by using AliG as an avatar

got link bait?

Sour grapes, it sounds like.

"Paul Graham & Co. take equity at an extremely low valuation.

Because the company is not worth very much when it's only days or weeks old. So?

"watch Justin.tv and you'll see a business in free-fall"

Huh? What makes him say that? Justin.tv has been live for a few weeks now. Free-fall?

"The number of visitors required to have an advertising driven site that is profitable and viable as a business is staggering"

So not true. You don't have to think very hard to come up with examples (dooce.com comes immediately to mind), but what I really want to suggest is that the post author read The Long Tail. You do not need a huge, mainstream, "staggering" audience to make good money, even with Google AdSense.

"... says another start-up was sold making it seem like a huge deal that closed. Except it's not. That other start-up is called Kiko and it sold for $258,000 on eBay to Tucows who will surely find it was a waste of their own money."

Tucows thinks otherwise, and seems to have pretty good reasoning. See

http://blog.tucows.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/5/2297315.html

where they say: "What was the value to Tucows of the time and the certainty? ... What was the value of having it be good for sure? Even if we threw it away in six months (not that we plan to do that)? What I can tell you for certain (and you'll be able to hear more details in an upcoming podcast) is that it was more than we paid!"

"Get Duped. You get 5 minutes to decide."

You should decide when you apply. If you don't know by the time you get the phone call, that's your fault, blogga.

"Ruin Your Health."

If your health is ruined by Lean Cuisine, then you would have died in college when you were subsisting on Top Ramen.

"Hurt your Family."

No one is forcing you to leave your pregnant wife. Hell, no one is even encouraging that.

"Become Pinocchio ... You pretend secrecy is important when you need to cover up a bomb or lack of actual interest from an acquirer."

That would be no different than any other company, except that this post's "evidence" that YC does this is scant and misrepresents the facts.

Blogga, PLEASE.

Justin.TV's Alexa rankings have been tanking, to the point where ustream.tv has almost overtaken them:

http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=justin.tv

Granted, that's just Alexa, and Compete.com still shows justin.tv growing healthily (though ustream's growth rate is higher). But still...were I justin.tv, I'd be concerned.

Ok, fair enough -- but the site is still only a few weeks old, and the way I understand it, watching Justin's life through his hat-cam is not the whole point of the business model. There is more to come.

Here is nice article on the reality of advertising as your b-model:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/the_economics_o_3.html

That's an interesting article. And it rebutts the point the blogga was making:

Entitled Three ways to build an online media business to $50m in revenue, the article does the math: At the $1 RPM (CPM/CPA/CPC) level achieved by most general sites, you need 4 billion page views/month. At the $5 RPM level achieved by demographically targeted sites, you need 800 million/month. At the $20 RPM level achieved by highly targeted sites, you need 200 million/month.

That's a high bar. This may be why more entrepreneurs are going for low-investment sites that don't need an exit but provide "lifestyle businesses" for their owners. (More on that another time.)

Who needs $50 million?? I don't. (I, unlike the original article's author, am not a VC.) Hell, gimme $5-6 million total and I'll be delighted.

Then again, there are a lot of untapped, underserved niches. Most of the Web2.0 sites, in my estimation, are nerd-oriented. There is plenty of room to serve more 'mainstream' niches (yes, I see the irony in that phrase).

The blog is a bit of a rant but there are a lot of valid points. I doubt this is someone who got turned down by Y Combinator though since he/she knows nothing about the application process.

That being said, I think the arrogance is reaching all time highs and Paul Graham needs to get it under control.

People just don't like to hear the truth, and then they try to avoid listening by just calling it "arrogance". I think PG is just taking some short cuts in his reasoning here and there, and people who can't follow get frustrated by that.

I'm still kind of confused. Y Combinator has just one success - Reddit. Everything else has either failed or is To Be Decided...

I don't know anything about the numbers, to be honest. It just seems like a very interesting and inspiring environment. I think it would be worth to pay money to be a part of it. If money was the only thing that would interest me, I would probably have become a financial consultant or an estate agent.

It's pretty obvious what Paul Grahams goal is. He wants to pay some kids a laughable amount of money to write code for an idea he likes. He then uses his popularity to promote those websites. He basically gets coders for cheap. He's not stupid or anything, it's just he gets the better end of the deal than the kids he gives $5k to.

If you have an idea that paul graham likes, you're better off not taking the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com