After reading it, I totally disagree. They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions.
Yes, their interest is in more people applying, but I don't see them being misleading. For me, they are actually really assuming intelligence from their readers. They don't say "We love foreign companies! Apply if you are foreigner!" They say "29% [of W16] were from outside the US". Which I read as "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance".
They don't say "Apply even if you are solo!" They say that some solo project were funded but that they are a small minority and that they do not recommend this path.
Of course this is self-interested, but I fail to see where it is dishonest.
YC encourages founders to be concise and get to the point, so if they wanted to say "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance", they could have and should have just said in plain language.
> They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions.
This exactly is the issue people here are intelligent and that is why they can see the glaring gaps in the way the data is presented.
I think people are little pissed because the article chose to go the data route and dint provide the complete information for people to infer from.
Yes, their interest is in more people applying, but I don't see them being misleading. For me, they are actually really assuming intelligence from their readers. They don't say "We love foreign companies! Apply if you are foreigner!" They say "29% [of W16] were from outside the US". Which I read as "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance".
They don't say "Apply even if you are solo!" They say that some solo project were funded but that they are a small minority and that they do not recommend this path.
Of course this is self-interested, but I fail to see where it is dishonest.