Paul Graham To Hold Y Combinator “Office Hours” At TechCrunch Disrupt
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I also don't know if it's going to work. I compressed the time slots about 3x to make it interesting for the audience. Since I won't know the startups already and the time slots are so short, the result will probably be more like YC interviews than office hours.
My one question would be: can you be as brutally honest as you need to be on stage with a team you've never seen before and might never see again? If so, then I think this is still an invaluable experience for the companies - most startups that just get feedback from their friends and a few early adopters don't get to hear the things that they need to.
cool, whomever down voted this you are a pretentious ass - rather than explain, you downvote.
As a side thought:
Given that we have had this ongoing discussion about the comment scores being hidden to preserve real dialogue - we should require a comment for every downvote, such that every downvote comes with an explanation or talking point for further discussion.
As it stands, the downvote is a silent and anonymous point of disagreement -- is allowed, and becomes visable (through greyed out comments) -- where the ability to see the comment's upvote count is not allowed and not reflected in the font size/color of the comment and thus invisible.
PG, I respectfully disagree with any and all reasonings you may have of hiding comment upvotes, and my opinion is only reinforced through the visable effect downvotes have on comments.
I worked on this webapp with ez, guz, and others. The idea is that people with knowledge/expertise in a subject can "hold office hours" with (strangers?) people looking for advice.
"Does he allow women founders to come to office hours? Although given his admittance that he prefers not to invest in women of child-bearing age, perhaps none will bother."
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com...
From the article:
"When I got to the bottom of [Paul Graham's] post I found the following footnote that read:
[2] One advantage startups have over established companies is that there are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. For example, I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon. [emphasis added] But you’re not allowed to ask prospective employees if they plan to have kids soon…Whereas when you’re starting a company, you can discriminate on any basis you want about who you start it with.
While its common knowledge among career savvy women that we often have to prove that we are “in it to win it,” so to speak, I was surprised to see this advice given so matter-of-factly without noting any further mitigating factors a “reluctant” founder might consider when contemplating starting a company with a woman who was, or desired to become, a mother."
The article goes on to explain this is a false choice.
Link to the article: http://blogs.forbes.com/85broads/2011/05/16/the-false-choice...
Link to the HN thread on the article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2554807
I suspect it would be more like a pitch-your-company-and-Paul-will-give-you-his-opinion-about-it session.
I guess if were that good they will find us or at least hear about us later.