[mitchelldeacon9]

For a contrarian argument, it is worth considering the advice of Michael Porter in his seminal study "Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors" (published in 1980):

> Some argue that firms should not choose competitive positions at all but concentrate on staying flexible, incorporating new ideas, or building up critical resources or core competencies that are portrayed as independent of competitive position. I respectfully disagree. Staying flexible in strategic terms renders competitive advantage almost unobtainable. Jumping from strategy to strategy makes it impossible to be good at implementing any of them. Continuous incorporation of new ideas is important to maintaining operational effectiveness, but this surely is not inconsistent with having a firm strategic position (xv-xvi)... A strategic position is a path, not a fixed location (xiv).

In other words, there is no such animal as a "fully diversified" entrepreneurial business (unless your business is simply investing money in a diversified stock portfolio). The very concept of a (non-financial) capitalist enterprise implies some degree of specialization. Even YC, to some extent, specializes and focuses their investments in certain high-tech industries.