Comment by KingOfCoders
5 years ago
Vote me down,
but Ycombinator: "It's all about the founders blah blah blah" - if their process finds and funds these kind of people, the process is broken.
5 years ago
Vote me down,
but Ycombinator: "It's all about the founders blah blah blah" - if their process finds and funds these kind of people, the process is broken.
Having just experienced my first "brain rape" from a recent YC grad I concur. The behavior of Amjad is similar to what I experienced interviewing (and apparently performing free consulting) with the company I was just speaking with.
Maybe these situations are not the norm, but they are certainly happening.
Ugh. Now I feel a bit guilty for referring a friend and former co-worker of mine to a company that is also a recent YC grad... He got hired, so I'm hoping that's not the same company and that it's not the norm... but that sounds awful and demoralizing.
Between this, and the story the other day related to founders bragging about taking advantage of certain vaccination site - it certainly seems that there is a basic "asshole filter" somewhere that YC does not have tuned correctly. Alternatively, they do have it tuned - and they don't mind assholes so long as they make them money... But yeah, YC should probably respond to some of this. Even if it's not a trend, it seems to now have the appearance of one.
Yeah, holding a VC fund and accelerator responsible for every tantrum thrown by one of their proteges is worth a downvote.
This kind of catastrophizing doesn't contribute. For one thing, you jumped from "this kind of person" to "these kind of people", without supporting evidence.
Do you have a process which can identify, in advance, everyone who is going to be an asshole to a former intern? While picking enough winners to make bank? Please share!
'"this kind of person" to "these kind of people"'
Oh, if I had two wishes from a genie, first would be world peace, second would be being a native English speaker.
Just want to point out, since I'm assuming you aren't a native English speaker, it should technically be "these kinds of people".
"these kind of people" is ungrammatical ("kind" is singular, "these" and "people" are plural).
Maybe in this case English isn't as hard as you thought. :)
3 replies →
> For one thing, you jumped from "this kind of person" to "these kind of people", without supporting evidence.
Not much of a jump: "kind" at the very least strongly implies the plural already. If you mean just one person, you say "this person", whereas "this kind of person" means "this person and others like him". AFAICS "this kind of person" and "these kind of people" are pretty much synonyms; the only difference between them is that the former is grammatically correct.
Yes, but supporting remote by offering $0 - 0 salary and 0.00% - 0.00% equity seems legit and completely transparent: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/repl-it/jobs/aihA75TQr...
Seeing that I would simply assume they didn't want to advertise specifics about salary, which is not unusual, so they entered 0 into a form. Am I missing something?
Illegal if seen by people in certain parts of the USA.
This seems like an illegal job listing in Colorado.
I've seen a lot of companies "get around" this new law by just saying the job is not available to people living in Colorado, either explicitly on the listing or when you apply.
A cursory glance[0] suggests this only applies if a company has at least one employee in Colorado.
[0]: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/colorado-pay-transparen...
To follow a tangent for a second, this doesn't seem wise on Colorado's part. It doesn't strike me as great law to begin with, but I'm willing to concede that point: the problem is that it creates a considerable regulatory burden for an all-remote company which takes on a single Colorado employee.
As someone who works remotely since well before the pandemic, I'd be pretty upset about this if I were a Colorado resident. I have family in Colorado as well, and while I've never seriously considered moving there this law makes it even less likely.
I suggest that it's not actually $0 but rather they didn't want to disclose the ranges in the form.
Is it broken? Based on historical evidence, signal that implies a strong startup founder does not necessarily imply a gentleman.
Let's iterate some famous startup founders. I could totally see them going off like this. Steve Jobs? Check. Elon Musk? Check.
Not defending bad behavior, but from point of view VC bad behavior is not necessarily a dealbreaker if they can deliver a unicorn.