[pg]

That's not true so far. We've never rejected a group because we didn't have room. If we keep getting more good applicants each cycle, we'll keep accepting more, till something breaks. Then we'll fix that and keep going. (This m.o. freaks out Jessica, but Rtm and Trevor and I keep assuring her that this is how you scale systems.)

[davidw]

There could be people who belong to the set "talents are going to waste" and who might make a go of it that, however, don't belong to the set that you consider "really good". At least logically it makes sense that, being human, your judgment is not infallible and that some good ones might have slipped between the cracks. Having some other places to go, even if they're not as good as the original is good, and validates the original idea. I think the only thing to worry about might be that if there were so many really bad ones out there that it taints the whole lot by association, but that doesn't seem highly likely to me.

[pg]

I was replying specifically to "There's no way tiny yc can support the huge number of capable people." I'm not saying there are no advantages to having multiple sources of seed funding, just that our inability to scale isn't one of them.