| ▲ | lkjdsklf 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||
He also doesn’t engage with the fact that this company required funding from y combinator to get to that point Which is something that is not an option for most people. Look at where y combinator founders come from. It’s 99% people from elite institutions That is a core part of AOC’s point Getting a startup funded is just not something that is possible for most people. They just aren’t in the right circles. Does not matter how good of an idea you have However, if you’re in the right circle, you’ll get shitloads of chances even after repeatedly failing. Just look at how many of these founders that “made it” drove multiple companies into the ground before making it. It’s a lot easier to find “good fortune” when you have a lot of chances than when you have 0 chances | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | csallen 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
Yes, you have to accomplish extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. How else should it work? Should investors give funding to people who haven't built anything, whose startups don't have any users, who had bad test scores and did poorly in school, and who have no references? If you think so, why? And how is that fair? If you believe that, should professional sports teams draft mediocre players? Players who didn't play in college or even in high school? Players who didn't make the JV team? If so, why? If not, why not, and how exactly is that so different? We all know there is no such thing as a perfect meritocracy. There never will be. Things will never be perfectly fair. That's life. But we can try to come as close as we can. And that obviously requires offering more opportunities to people who perform the best. Otherwise, what incentive is there to even strive and try to do well? The alternative isn't fairness, it's randomness. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||