[Josh2600hz]

The graph here doesn't prove causality (or even really a correlation).

On the one hand, PG argues that funding is not a good indicator of success, and on the other hand, the author here is saying look how successful all of these funded companies are! It's a false equivalency.

The author is doing exactly what PG talked about, glossing back over history with 20/20 hindsight. As indicated, even the prestigious YC has ~75% of returns from 2 startups.

The article doesn't talk about how many companies failed, spectacularly, in order for those other organizations to succeed. Cuil flamed out $100M+, and there are countless other examples.

I'm not saying the author is wrong, only that this didn't prove causality to me; ergo funding=success.