Do we have to be careful what we say on HN?
But I would encourage folks to consider their approach, in general, whenever we are in a professional context (and, despite the casual nature of HN, this is very much a “professional context”).
I think that some few people here, are able to post in a truly anonymous fashion, but most folks could be doxxed fairly easily, if they piss off the wrong people (not always movers and shakers; we have some truly amazing talent, hereabouts).
In my case, I just make it clear who I am, and post carefully (I know it may not seem so, but look closer). I learned, long ago, that I’m not actually able to maintain true anonymity, so I don’t even try.
It was fairly obvious, that I would not be considered, if I didn't have one.
That's kind of shitty. I'm writing this down as in the last 2-3 years I've started to care less and less about any perceived veil (or hypocrisy, to be more honest) on websites like this one but it's still interesting to see that companies filter out potential employees based on that manifested hypocrisy. That explains a lot of how come SV is in the slump that it is right now (ignoring the AI bubble), but that's matter for a different discussion.
We all have to be well-behaved hackers and painters, or else. That's not how it worked in the past, and it will never work like that.
All of us, and I mean ALL OF US have dark fantasy lives. Freud called it our "Id."
It's not meant to be worn outside our heads.
One of the common refrains that you'll hear from fans of "hatemongers," like Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh, is "They're just saying what everyone is thinking!".
There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think.
That's not hypocrisy. That's being a good member of society.
I have good friends -like, actually really good friends, who hold beliefs that I disagree with -sometimes, quite strongly.
We don't talk about that stuff, when we're together.
That's not hypocrisy, either. That's being friends. We find that there are a lot more values that we hold in common, than in opposition.
Modern social media has made it fashionable to use society as a public toilet for our Ids. I don't think that it has improved things.
The Freud/id stuff I can understand (and I agree with), but that’s related to a person’s inner “psychological” life, not to the polis as a whole.
Also, even in the political arena, there's often a need for personal restraint. My family has been in international diplomacy for decades (I'm the redneck engineer).
My father[0] used to constantly pop my "Simple wrong answer" balloons, on a regular, by explaining that nothing that involves humans, is ever actually simple, and that there are always dozens of competing forces at work; much of it sloppy emotions, pride, poverty, insecurity, tribalism, ignorance, religion, greed, and whatnot.
I have other family that has worked for decades, trying to get different faiths to work together, to address issues like poverty, lack of education, etc.
Talk about "herding cats."
Someone (I think Will Rogers) used to say "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie,' while reaching for a rock."
Turned out that I didn't really feel like working with companies that require HN handles, and they didn't feel like working with past-their-prime engineers, so it's all good.
I stuck around, and folks generally seem to feel I'm a decent member, here. A few curmudgeons don't like me, but, when you're "on the spectrum," you get pretty used to folks not liking you, for no discernible reason. I've found that being true to myself, means that it doesn't really matter, all that much. I've had really dangerous people not like me, IRL, so this joint is Amateur Hour.
I try to be a decent member here, and not bring darkness (I'm quite capable of it). Some folks think that makes me "stuffy," or "snobby."
Whatever creams your Twinkie. I'm actually a pretty decent person, and it's probably worth it, to get to know me. I won't make you rich, but I'm also no threat to anyone (and have no desire to be). I believe in helping folks, and trying to keep humanity first and foremost. HN handles are people, not NPCs (for the most part -Ed.), and I try to keep that in mind, when I post, here.
The Adchemy’s investors were funding a lawsuit against a startup. I imagine from YC’s perspective, that kind of thing was considered bad for the ecosystem.
By which I mean nobody involved was going to make money. There’s no blood in a stone. The lawsuit was not in anyone’s business interest. The article states it was even contrary to an unwritten rule of the startup culture.
There's one case I'm thinking of now where someone was as critical of YC (both the org and individual leaders) as anyone could possibly be, in a highly public and sustained way, and their startup later got funded by YC.
The article is about how YC defended one of its funded companies against a legal attack. It doesn’t say anything about YC refusing to fund someone who criticized it.
If you said something unflattering about YC once and got uninvited from demo day, that's on you. But being black listed from ever investing in any YC-backed startup even if you reach out to founders directly is taking things too far. And potentially an antitrust issue. Cabals are illegal, after all.
The only cases I know of where an investor was banished from Demo Day/YC’s network was for acting in bad faith towards founders. If YC banished investors who had a track record of being great to founders, they would be doing a disservice to founders, and therefore acting against YC’s own interests.
That aside, my original comment doesn’t contradict anything in the article (I can’t speak for the entire book - honestly when I tried reading it I couldn’t get past the first few pages).