Hacker News Reader

Comment by pg | Hacker News Reader

I was curious about who this guy was, since this is full of inaccuracies and yet shows some inside knowledge. It turns out the author is not a YC founder, but a programmer who worked for one of the companies we funded, and who didn't stay with the company long. So for example it's not merely because "this has been covered so many times it’s not really worth mentioning" that he doesn't go into detail about the interview. It's because he wasn't at the interview.

View on HN

Author here:

What was inaccurate about this write-up?

I wasn't hired part way through the batch, I joined them as they were going through the interview process, true. I didn't stay with the company until the very end, you're right. I had a different vision than they did. I still was on the YC Founders list. I still went to every YC event, meeting, and dinner as a founder. Just trying to share what I know and learned from YC so people can still find success and community.

After I left the company I was taken off the founders list, that was fine by me. Does that make me any less a part of YC or the spirit of this community?

The most striking inaccuracy is the superficial description of YC, both in breadth and depth. You can't accurately describe the interview, or the many interactions we've had with the company since Demo Day, since you weren't there for those, so you effectively omit them. And you can't describe the many individual conversations YC partners had with the CEO and founders of the company you worked for outside of office hours (many of which were about what to do about you), because you weren't there for those either. So the impression you give of YC is that it consists of dinners plus Demo Day plus a few office hours, because that was what you saw of it.

(many of which were about what to do about you)

What does this mean? Is this as an attack on the author's credibility, character, skills or otherwise?

It seems like there should be a distinction on whether he shouldn't have written this because he didn't have the full experience of a founder or because he is not a credible witness because he was an employee that was going against the grain and that the founders were struggling to deal with in some capacity.

The troubles the company had with him don't reflect on his credibility as a witness of the things he did see. My point is that there was also a lot he didn't see.

Thanks pg. Based on filling in the details you provided I agree with you. As a reader I assumed this was his analysis as a true founder - present from pitch to alumni. Clearly, that's not the case.

It means it's a pretty sick burn.

Additionally, one of the glaring inaccuracies of this post is the amount of time spent on pitch practice. One of my team mates is a YC alum. He mentioned that YC gave his company brute force focus on customers and product.

I think you're missing the point of the article. The article was to keep the community motivated and positive.

I was taken off the list too, but I left voluntarily, and without drama(purposefully). It was the right decision for me. The friendships I made at YC are still awesome.

You might have just burned a potential bridge needlessly.

I read this article and saw too many inaccuracies, felt a little angry, and then let it go. I strongly advise proof checking your writing in the future.

I left on my own volition. Founder problems are the rule, not the exception. I'm still friends with quite a number of my batch mates.

Can you point out the inaccuracies? Because to me, these were my experiences. Shed some light. :)

I think the biggest issue is the huge oversimplification of YC.

If I were to eat sushi at Jiro ('jiro dreams of sushi') and I said: Couldn't eat at Jiro's, heres what you're missing:

  *You sit at the bar and an old guy serves you raw fish.*

It wouldn't be inaccurate, but it would be a gross oversimplification of what it involves and the effort put by Jiro beforehand.

I too was part of YC and I don't think your articles captures the essence of YC even in a small way.

I wasn't trying to capture every aspect of YC. The article wasn't about diminishing YC. Just trying to keep things positive and help people keep building. :)

You just attacked the credibility of the person instead of the credibility of the points and you said it's "full of inaccuracies" without going into specifics.

Have you changed your stance on whether you feel those two things are in the spirit of a quality HN discussion?

(Disclaimer: This is pure speculation)

While I'm sure pg has his reasons for disliking an article generalizing the program he's built for most of the past decade, he may have wanted to say something almost as a method of damage control. It sure shows that the article struck a chord somewhere, as he usually doesn't respond to these sorts of things.

(Though I do enjoy the fact that his response scores at best a three on his own scale: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

I believe the canonical answer to questions of that type is Mu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)).

This article purports to be a YC founder's recollection of YC. Pointing out that it's not is not simply an ad hominem.

Interesting. That tidbit of information puts a whole new spin on the article. Slightly off-topic: Do a lot of companies end up hiring during YC? I thought that didn't happen.

There are plenty of YC companies with employees before entering YC, even. Certainly not a majority, but there are some surprisingly far-along companies entering YC.

The other funny part is that even you and the other YC partners don't see probably 95% of the interactions between YC companies, which IMO are one of the most worthwhile parts of YC, especially after demo day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com