u/HypeStoic

Disclaimer: I don't work for YC; I don't speak for them. I just wanted to write this so folks here can understand why some people get funded and others don't.

I applied to YC four times before getting in. Nothing in my background is particularly remarkable. I worked in tech, went to decent schools, no medals or famous mentors. What changed on the fourth try was that we had grown from $10k to $100k ARR in two months and signed a large customer, in an industry that does not move that fast.

That is the whole formula as far as I can tell: Evidence of exceptional ability. Everything else is downstream of it.

Look at who actually gets funded and it tracks. The new grads who get a check on an idea that is a few days old are usually graduating from an Ivy while sitting first chair in a national orchestra, or they spent their undergrad doing real research alongside a Nobel laureate. I know these types because they were in my YC section. The idea did not get them funded (many ended up pivoting lol). The proof that they can do hard things at a level almost nobody reaches got them funded.

The other end of the distribution follows the same pattern. The team that gets in on their seventh application is not there because attempt seven had a better idea. They finally hit traction on something that had been pressure tested for years and now genuinely needs capital to move faster. The traction is the evidence.

To be clear, the idea does matter. But it is a filter, not the thing most rejected applicants are actually failing. If you are early and getting rejected, the instinct is to assume the idea was the problem and to go looking for a better one. Don't do that. Just keep working on the business, and eventually the business itself will be the evidence.

Just ask yourself what you can point to that makes it obvious you operate at a different level than the average applicant. If the honest answer is nothing yet, that is the actual work in front of you.

Go build the evidence for your exceptional ability and the funding will follow.

Howdy!

I've been pulling shots on a Barista Express and I'm ready for an upgrade. The three things pushing me are 1) thermal stability, 2) consistency between shots, and 3) better steaming. The one thing I refuse to give up is the quick heat up. I like walking up to the machine and pulling a shot a couple of minutes later, and I have no interest in anything that needs a 25 minute warm up. I know this is kind of unreasonable, but I own an ooni volt 2 and the management of the heat up time (also 20+ minutes) isn't my favorite experience. I can't really imagine having to do that every morning especially when used to the Breville.

At any rate, I've done what I can with the Breville. I'm on a bottomless portafilter with an IMS basket, and at this point I think I'm running into the machine rather than my technique.

If anyone has actually made this switch, how has it gone?

1. Is the temperature stability and shot-to-shot consistency noticeably better in the cup, or is it marginal?
2. How does the steam compare to the Breville in both speed and microfoam quality? Does the two minute heat up hold in practice, or does the first shot of the day still run cool?
3. Are there any quirks or regrets after living with it for a while, like the water tank clearance or shot volume accuracy issues I've seen mentioned?

Grinder side is covered, so I'm asking purely about the machine. I mostly make milk drinks, so steaming performance matters a lot to me. Thanks in advance.

Edit: formatting.