[TTPrograms]

It's sort of crazy to make such a sweeping decision based on one case - especially when remote collaboration tools are improving on a quarterly basis.

Of course statements like this are just rationalizations - not arguments employed to arrive at objective conclusions.

[vikramkr]

Yeah, looking back at it there's definitely a question raised by how it was just one data point, especially considering that this also means there likely wasn't a lot of institutional support on YC's end for the one remote startup as well. It wouldn't be deliberate but if you've just got that one remote startup you aren't going to be really trying to make remote programming work and making all the resources remote-friendly.

For other experiments, YC has discussed publically (fellowship, accepting people with no idea, early decision) there were what seemed externally at least to be well-run experiments with multiple accepted and some longer-term tracking to see how that worked. No remote seems to finally be getting that proper experimentation and treatment, I guess we'll see how that goes.

There are a lot of benefits to in person, I personally prefer working on things in-person to remote (in biotech, in-person really matters), but it'll be an interesting experiment this batch to see how much room there is for fully remote startup development across all the sectors they invest, both in terms of the batch itself and the companies individually.

[jjeaff]

Ya, that's exactly what I thought when I read that. I guess if that one single company had been an amazing success, they would have just dropped everything, shit down the offices and gone fully virtual at that point?