“All the best things I did at Apple came from (a) not having money and
(b) not having done it before, ever. Every single thing that we came out with
that was really great, I’d never once done that thing in my life.”
-- Woz
245 karma · joined April 6, 2008
(b) not having done it before, ever. Every single thing that we came out with
that was really great, I’d never once done that thing in my life.”
-- Woz
We're sorry to say we couldn't accept your proposal for funding.
Please don't take it personally, because most of the proposals we
rejected, we rejected for reasons having nothing to do with the
quality of the applicants. For example, we were very reluctant to
accept proposals with only one founder, because we think starting
a startup is too much work for one person. We also had a higher
threshold for applicants who were still in school, groups where one
or more members planned to keep their current jobs, and groups that
couldn't all move to California. We rejected a lot of proposals simply
because we couldn't understand them, or didn't understand the problem
domain well enough to judge them, or because the project seemed too
big to start on only three months of funding. Sometimes we even
rejected good ideas, because another group proposed the same idea
and seemed further along.Send them a letter rejecting their rejection letter and show up anyhow. From gettingintogradschool.com:
Thank for your letter of April 9. After careful consideration, I regret to
inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me admission
to our department.
This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large
number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of
candidates it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.
Despite W.M.U.'s outstanding qualifications and previous experience in
rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at
this time. Therefore, I will join the ranks of graduate students in your
department this September. I look forward to seeing you then.
Sincerely,I honestly think they are just too pressed for time to do a thorough review. Applicants can check their web logs and see if YC even looked at their stuff. Submitting early is probably a major advantage if it means they (YC) actually have time to take a gander at what you did.
When you start you get water wings that say, "Make Something People Want"
Guard: "Not so fast!"
Worker: "How about I split the $10 million in cash I'm holding with you?"
Depends on the culture and technology level. With primitive technology in certain cultures, there's a "big man" who still has to farm his own yams but who gets a little more input generally -- however, he doesn't actually get to order people about. Then you get a little more technology and some bigwig is bossing people around.
I think we will come out the other side where technology is so advanced that nobody really needs to depend on other people, thus we will be independently equal, and thus, not be ruled over. Not to mention, with nonbiological intelligence, the difference between any two humans intellectually will just be noise.
Except it comes at the same time the company folds, which mean you lose your job and have to pay for the privilege. I agree on a hypothetical 120k salary this isn't a big deal but in many start-ups you're basically at subsistence level.
and begin arranging and delivering flowers.
// Mozart
// eof
It's community college."
Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them.
Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint.
It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system.
I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference.
By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.