Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

  Step 1: Dazzle an influential person
  Step 2: Persuade them to hitch their reputation to you
  Step 3: Do whatever you want with minimal repercussions
Follow these 3 steps and influential people will actively fight on your behalf, against their own best interests, to avoid embarrassing themselves and diminishing their reputations. Use each influential person as a stepping stone to an even more influential person and repeat.


Or, when you fire people, have a clear reason for it. Not being "consistently candid" is not that.


lying of any type is always grounds for termination. "consistently candid" is just a more PC phrase for lying.


The details matter here. Consistently lying is grounds for termination. Not consistently being outspoken/blunt might not be. "Not being consistently candid" can be interpreted as either.


Candid means speaking your mind; truth. "Consistently candid" therefore means consistently telling the truth, perhaps even to a fault.


You want companies to post the reasons for every firing on Twitter?


No. But if you are going to make a statement, it behooves you to fill it with substance.


That's not how board press release are. I can't help but feel everyone is using Twitter rules to study a corporate game.


Not regular employees. Twitter is one method of communication.


No, but at least tell the reasons to the CEO you replaced him with. Even Shear was kept in dark and was planning to leave OpenAI.


I’m ambivalent about it in general, but curious in this case specifically.


Tips on step 2?


A really slick slide deck on how your unicorn will make this person the envy of his peers.

Also amazing amounts of luck, or family connections.


Helps if you make a good prebirth choice to be born into wealth, influence


Appeal to ego.


I have hung out on HN for over 14 years and took a personal interest in "How in the heck did a pretty young woman co-found a company with three men, date one of them and not have this turn into a debacle and scandal in the headlines???" It took quite a few years for the details behind the founding of YC to come out:

1. Jessica Livingston did not co-found a company with three random men.

2. She and Paul Graham were dating, she was job hunting and being jerked around and he said one day "Why don't we start a company?"

3. Within a day or so, he called his two co-founders from Via Web and asked them to come on board like part time or something and they said "yes."

4. They initially hid their personal relationship as a dating couple to try to appear professional.

So they have a long history of being very private people and because I am a woman who has struggled to get any traction and blah blah blah, when I learned Sam was gay, I figured "Ah, that's probably the real reason he was appointed President of YC: Paul Graham wanted to protect his marriage while retiring from YC and was concerned about his pretty, younger wife working closely with a man other than himself. So he appointed a gay guy to take over 45 percent of his duties."*

So if that had anything to do with the hiring decision, not announcing the firing would be in line with long-standing personal policy to keep his private life private and not talk to the world about his marriage to Jessica Livingston and it wouldn't exactly be shocking if that meant it (hiring him) wasn't the wisest business move.

She eventually also retired from YC, so her being there while Paul Graham is home with the kids is no longer relevant to who runs things at YC. They are both founders and presumably major stock holders, I imagine they both still have influence there.

/"wild speculation" from an outsider who has never met any of these people but did sort of politely cyberstalk Jessica Livingston for some years trying to figure "How does a woman become a successful business founder?"

* "45 percent" because Paul said somewhere that he continued to do "office hours" with program participants and called that "10 percent" of what he did at YC before retiring. They also hired Dan Gackle to take over as moderator of Hacker News when Paul Graham stepped down.

So Paul was not replaced by Sam Altman. They hired two full-time employees that I know of and Paul continued to work part-time at the business while his wife worked full-time and presumably kept Paul up-to-date about daily goings-on over breakfast/dinner, so he likely continued to have significant influence on company decisions and day-to-day stuff invisibly via his wife.


While I think it's unlikely that you'll summon pg or dang to comment on something like that it's is an interesting take and I wonder if any of those involved have addressed it elsewhere.


Probably not.

1. Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston tend to keep their private life private.

2. If I'm correct, it seems unlikely Paul told anyone he hired Sam to protect his personal interests as a married man nervous about his pretty younger wife working closely with another men.

3. If I'm correct, he probably didn't even tell Jessica because that would have come off as "I don't trust you" and not "I am worried about his behavior."


That is quite a wild conclusion to jump to. What evidence or clues lead you to that.


I spent several years trying to figure this out and I did not keep track of my sources because it was a personal interest, not an "argument" I was trying to make. But here is pg talking about Jessica Livingston and YC:

YC had 4 founders. Jessica and I decided one night to start it, and the next day we recruited my friends Robert Morris and Trevor Blackwell. Jessica and I ran YC day to day, and Robert and Trevor read applications and did interviews with us.

Jessica and I were already dating when we started YC. At first we tried to act "professional" about this, meaning we tried to conceal it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/jessica.html

Note: That's from November 2015. I originally joined in July 2009 and the company dates to something like 2007.


Good observations, a bit of a stretch,

regarding scandal and not scandal, real life doesnt follow rigid ideas of “the power dynamics are too extreme for this relationship to exist”

that’s just tabloid drama

people can be objective mature partners that met on the job where one was an executive and the other doing something menial


That wasn't the "scandal" I had in mind. I was wondering "How in the heck did one of three male co-founders ask her for a date, her say yes and this not turn into three male co-founders fighting over who gets the girl instead of focusing on developing the business?"


Gotcha, its a timeless tale, Paul Graham is king and finds the eunuch to act as a proverbial chastity belt to while watching over the lady

whether thats what happened or not, it is disarming to say the least and many would be more comfortable with the same situation given the option


Huh the things I heard about Altman a long time before was that he was a couch surfer at YCombinator.


Well I can't edit this and this page has likely been archived so... I'll just write this. Sam was essentially homeless. A failed startup with not much to it. Sure, it was acquired but it gave him essentially just enough to continue trying to pursue his dream. He really didn't make any progress at all. At YCombinator he was essentially stuck for years. There's a lot of fake and editorialized stories about his life and his made up genius. The dude dropped out of college it's not this amazing story. Mentally he had given up everything to try to reach this stage. I don't know the full story but almost everything online I've read is completely different from what I've actually heard.


Steps 1 and 2 are very hard to accomplish.


Trust your gut. No one here has a good story about "Sam I Am".


That's how Jeffrey Epstein made it, starting with Les Wexner.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: