I wonder if that was deliberate. I also wonder if references to YC lore raise or lower your odds of getting in.
Hopefully this doesn't sound snarky--PG's essays have lots of allusions that I end up referencing without remembering the source. I'd expect to do that much more in a startup-related context.
I'm nonplussed at how often pg sums up my own views. One cause is that the books I read about startups are based on SV stories - while pg talks to the people who actually did them, batches of startups who are currently doing them, and he's in the story himself. Also, I've likely read some of what he's read (e.g. The Innovator's Dilemma).
So, I find YC lore very helpful, because of the truths it contains. But citing it purely as lore (without understanding it) would probably count as a severe negative. I'm not sure about the case of providing an alternative expression of the same idea, especially if pg's is more succinct/appropriate - but it's always helpful to speak the same dialect as your audience, if only for communication.
Really loved this piece of advice and highly recommend. It's something I always do before an interview/presentation/important talk.
1) As Alex mentions, this is FAR more useful in the moment than a list of bullet points or the like.
2) Like a lot of note-taking, I find that the act of thinking about and creating the mindmap has advantages in and of itself. Often the act of carefully creating it means that I don't actually need to refer to it later. I personally find this with a lot of note taking. I spend a lot of time carefully taking notes - generally a bunch of notes, comments and citations connected by a bunch of lines in different colored inks, kind of a mix of "traditional" note taking and a bit of a mindmap. The time I spend really thinking about how to best present and relate all the ideas on a single page often leads to internalizing the content so well that I never really need the notes unless I'm coming back months later.
Do you think having applied previously was a positive or a negative for you? Do you think it matters that these applications were for different ideas? I'm just trying to figure out when I should apply--if it is better to wait and develop something fully functional before applying or applying now with the caveat that I need the funding to help develop the idea.
I am planning to apply with a technical co-founder, but I have concerns about how we could effectively develop our product without some substantial financial backing. I don't want to put something out there half-assed and have it fail because we didn't have the right tools, only to then have someone with the resources to execute steal the idea.
Nothing is ever truly finished. You just ship it.
In other words, it pays to be a winner.
"a valuable life lesson."
It makes sense though. I never understood why classes you fail are averaged into your GPA as a 0.0 instead of just ignored. After all, the amount of stuff you don't know or can't do is always going to be effectively infinite. So how is getting an A in one class and failing 99 others any different from getting an A in one class and not taking 99 others? The current system is just an attempt to punish people for wasting university resources, it has zero to do with actually assessing the abilities of a person.
If you try to do something and fail--especially something that the median undergrad in your school can do successfully--it says something about you.
obviously this kind of model gives a very bleak valuation of education, but i think its a thoughtful one that probably is truer than we'd all like to think.
People fail things for all sorts of reasons in Uni, they're also often going through Relationships 101 which is great for knocking people for a loop.
>When it came time to reapply, I did so with someone who was widely recognized as one of the smartest technical folks on HN
Who was it?
I'm a bit surprised that YC hasn't funded another non-technical, single founder yet.
Even though there's only one Steve Jobs, I'd bet several non-technical people will go on to build great tech companies in the future.
Perhaps these people have just found quality technical talent to partner with, so they're co-founders.
From the bloggers' point of view, one of the ways they create value is by writing about interesting new products, and what we're offering is an ethical and transparent way for them to discover these products while at the same time getting to meet and interact with the entrepreneurs behind them.
Here is a good writeup that explains it better than I can:
And just like that, I understand your plan. Nicely phrased.
Other than that, enlightening post.
It's because I wrote this in a hurry so I didn't take as much time to polish the white spacing as I normally would, which makes it more difficult to read. The issue is that there are basically three or four separate ideas that are all chunkified together. I edited that sentence though to at least make it more clear.