> If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.

That's pretty amusing. Whim -> arbitrary doesn't exactly constitute a long chain. Might want to start employing your proofreading team for your comments ;)

I'll refer you to one of my other responses:

"Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process."

YC's process reminds me of the Feynman story about choosing schoolbooks.

You have a bunch of young would-be founders who don't have a track record. How else are you going to choose? You just don't have enough evidence to go by in many cases.

Assuming a large portion of the applications come in near the deadline, you're in the position of having to review hundreds in the space of a week. It's like going through stacks of resumes, your eyes glaze over.

Making the observation is no slight to YC. You give people a chance despite them not having much of anything to show. I also know whim is a big factor even when there is a lot of supporting evidence because it's just human nature. That's why Cisco was turned down by 80 VCs despite having great numbers and committed people already.

Accusing someone of trolling because they had the audacity to bust out the dictionary to prove you wrong? Classic! "Every native English speaker [...]" -- too funny!

"Where the dictionary and I disagree, the dictionary is wrong." That should clear things up around here!

You are debating nothing here. "Perfectly calculated and optimal decision" versus "whim" falls on a continuum. They try to evaluate the applications and interviewees very quickly. This results in some less than optimal decisions. Still, it's too much to call their decision making progress a whim, because there is much more to it than completely arbitrary choice.

I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview. The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.

> Still, it's too much to call their decision making progress a whim, because there is much more to it than completely arbitrary choice.

I didn't say the process was completely arbitrary or only whim. I said not to leave your fate up to someone else's whim -- which is probably what it comes down to for the group of "maybes". Whim is generally the make-it-or-break-it deciding factor. And when there are more unknowns -- as with applicants who lack experience, or lack a demo -- it plays an increasingly larger role.

> I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview.

You're essentially saying now that YC lacked solid reasons for making their decision because the process is too brief. I agree. They don't have that much information, and they don't spend that much time on it. They make a call one way or the other and then go on to the next applicant.

> The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.

Which is to say, it is less based on whim than YC.

Edit: And one more thing -- your chances are always better if they like you personally, and almost always zero if they don't. That is why whim plays a big part in any human relationship, and investing is no exception. If they like you enough, that is often all it takes. I've heard and read interviews with VCs that go like this: I didn't understand what they were talking about, but I didn't care, I said, "I like you guys, here's some money, now go build it."