Hacker News Reader

> Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas

True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does. Especially when your investment money came from the sale of your own successful startup.

"Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.

Still, there's truth in what you're saying: The large number of applications necessitates that they use heuristics and gut feelings to choose whom to interview. Their rejection letter admits that the process isn't perfect, and it would be unwise to give up on an idea on the basis of a YC rejection.

> True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does.

I would be surprised if anyone on YC news couldn't get a few successes out of 60 start-ups.

YC's had its share of duds as well. And various times we've heard they're not far in the black; considering the micro-investments they're making, that doesn't strongly support the notion that they are especially successful.

> "Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.

I'm sure they are careful in certain ways but there's only so much to be gleaned from a brief application, which may not include the follow-up 10-minute interview. Three people can't advise 60 existing start-ups and do due diligence on 500 more. Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process.

Hence, whim.

> Amer. Heritage: whim: "Arbitrary thought or impulse". Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference".

What you're doing here is a lot like the game telephone. If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.

Every native English speaker knows "whim" does not have the same meaning as "decision," which is what your argument implies.

I assume you're not deliberately trolling, but I have the same feeling of having to explain things I shouldn't have to explain that I do when I'm tricked into arguing with a troll.

> If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.

That's pretty amusing. Whim -> arbitrary doesn't exactly constitute a long chain. Might want to start employing your proofreading team for your comments ;)

I'll refer you to one of my other responses:

"Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process."

YC's process reminds me of the Feynman story about choosing schoolbooks.

You have a bunch of young would-be founders who don't have a track record. How else are you going to choose? You just don't have enough evidence to go by in many cases.

Assuming a large portion of the applications come in near the deadline, you're in the position of having to review hundreds in the space of a week. It's like going through stacks of resumes, your eyes glaze over.

Making the observation is no slight to YC. You give people a chance despite them not having much of anything to show. I also know whim is a big factor even when there is a lot of supporting evidence because it's just human nature. That's why Cisco was turned down by 80 VCs despite having great numbers and committed people already.

Accusing someone of trolling because they had the audacity to bust out the dictionary to prove you wrong? Classic! "Every native English speaker [...]" -- too funny!

"Where the dictionary and I disagree, the dictionary is wrong." That should clear things up around here!

Taking two days to reply makes you automatically lose the debate. Sorry.

> Taking two days to reply makes you automatically lose the debate. Sorry.

It might occur to you that some people are busy working on their start-ups rather than spending all their time debating points of little consequence on YC news. I haven't posted at all in two days, not just on that thread.

It's also pretty hilarious you think you need to "award" Paul the "win", on his own site, based on a made-up technicality.

I can tell you don't really believe what he said, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to score brownie points! You want the whim in your favor.

You are debating nothing here. "Perfectly calculated and optimal decision" versus "whim" falls on a continuum. They try to evaluate the applications and interviewees very quickly. This results in some less than optimal decisions. Still, it's too much to call their decision making progress a whim, because there is much more to it than completely arbitrary choice.

I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview. The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.

> Still, it's too much to call their decision making progress a whim, because there is much more to it than completely arbitrary choice.

I didn't say the process was completely arbitrary or only whim. I said not to leave your fate up to someone else's whim -- which is probably what it comes down to for the group of "maybes". Whim is generally the make-it-or-break-it deciding factor. And when there are more unknowns -- as with applicants who lack experience, or lack a demo -- it plays an increasingly larger role.

> I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview.

You're essentially saying now that YC lacked solid reasons for making their decision because the process is too brief. I agree. They don't have that much information, and they don't spend that much time on it. They make a call one way or the other and then go on to the next applicant.

> The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.

Which is to say, it is less based on whim than YC.

Edit: And one more thing -- your chances are always better if they like you personally, and almost always zero if they don't. That is why whim plays a big part in any human relationship, and investing is no exception. If they like you enough, that is often all it takes. I've heard and read interviews with VCs that go like this: I didn't understand what they were talking about, but I didn't care, I said, "I like you guys, here's some money, now go build it."

The word "arbitrary" has several meanings, but for each instance of its use, there is only one meaning, and the context determines which one it is. In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned, but this one: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". Unfortunately, that makes it a bit circular. Let's try another dictionary. Webster gives "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will", which I think is suitable in that context.

Of course, your judgment of what is suitable in the context may be different from mine, but there is at least one thing that speaks in my favor: your very own claim that your version "would provoke stronger visceral response". Why would it, if its meaning was the same?

> In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned

It most certainly is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whim

> Why would it, if its meaning was the same?

You may as well ask, "Why do words matter?"

You're unsuccessfully trying to argue an academic point while ignoring the basic gist of the decision, which is de facto one of considerable extrapolation. There simply isn't enough data in many cases to make a decision based on reason; that leaves whim. Even in cases where the data is obvious, whim comes into play, which is why Cisco had to go to 70 or 80 venture capitalists despite doing hundreds of thousands a month in business already without outside investment. Other VCs' stories of "the one that got away" involve a long-haired Steve Jobs.

This is merely human nature. It's no particular indictment of YC, everyone does it. I'm advocating for not leaving your decision of what to do with your life up to any single investor, or indeed, a series of 70 or 80 of them.