zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. bombca+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-05-19 12:54:42
YC is just a VC firm. They avoid known risks and embrace unknown ones: that’s the whole point.

They don’t “understand” Mexico and are scared that their investment will get Pemex’d or something - and since that’s a known financial risk their backers would be like “wtf you doing?”

But “unknown” risks (even if actually quite easy to see) don’t have the same pushback from their investors. In fact, their investors may be demanding that they heavily invest in unknown risks.

replies(2): >>xtract+U4 >>rchaud+XI1
2. xtract+U4[view] [source] 2022-05-19 13:22:01
>>bombca+(OP)
Great answer, thanks!
3. rchaud+XI1[view] [source] 2022-05-19 21:50:37
>>bombca+(OP)
> But “unknown” risks (even if actually quite easy to see) don’t have the same pushback from their investors.

Malcolm Gladwell had a phrase for this in a 1996 article about a vacation town that favoured hiring temp workers from the Caribbean (Gladwell is part-Caribbean) instead of black Americans who lived in nearby towns.

The employers made a decision on the basis known unknowns and unknown knowns. Gladwell described it thusly:

"Better the ghetto you don't know than the ghetto you know".

replies(1): >>bombca+gx3
◧◩
4. bombca+gx3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-05-20 14:06:26
>>rchaud+XI1
Yeah, it really all boils down to "you should have known better" - which is a horrible thing to say in many cases. It's what causes so much friction around hiring ex-felons, etc.
[go to top]