[void_mint]

I feel like you've begun sealioning.

> Just because, let's say, stats showed they mostly invest in people under 35, does it mean they discriminate people over 35?

It's about rates, not just raw numbers. If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35, very clearly you're discriminating against the over 35 category.

> If most of founders they invest in are white, does it mean they discriminate against asians, blacks etc.?

Again, if 30% of applicants are not-white and you accept 2% of them, when generalized success rate is 10%, yes it would again be pretty clear you're discriminating against the non-white category.

> Once again, what proves discrimination?

More sealioning. When a group of people intentionally select for or against a certain group, as is evidenced by patterns of behavior over long periods of time.

[whitepaint]

> If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35 ...

Could this scenario happen because of anything else besides discrimination from YC?

[void_mint]

It's like any stats question. Depends entirely on your sample. With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't. Also this is more sealioning.

[whitepaint]

Let's both stop spamming this board. I will leave you with this.

Assume we have a huge sample data.

And assume "Equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35"

Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?

Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?

Have a good day.

[void_mint]

The original question:

> What evidence would convince you?

Your post history definitely brings to light that, for you, no amount of evidence would convince you, because you refuse to acknowledge discrimination as a possibility.

> Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?

Definitely, it wouldn't even be a question.

> Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?

The sealion strikes again! "It can't be discrimination if I can think of any other possibility". That's the value in large datasets.