|
|
|
|
|
|
by whitepaint
1775 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
> 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.