Sorry - the link in that thread is to a tweet, not the article the tweet links, which is what I wanted to link - that article indicates the partners leading the fund (and program) left YC.
I haven't heard specifics about those programs but with the partners leading gone it seems difficult to imagine them continuing - fair point though, no solid news.
Already linked to a source that shows the references to the programs are gone in my original comment; though that page is still there.
Also, might be wrong, but “theinformation.com” as a source is insta ban as a result of it being a “hard walled” content; hard walled meaning it’s not possible to access the content via alternative means. If you have a source that’s not blocked, feel free to provide it, otherwise just see this as promoting a source that’s ban on HN.
Here’s all the dead submissions, though you likely have to have “show dead” turned on from your profile settings:
Oof, I don't lurk here during work nearly as much as I used to - missed the memo about it being a banned source, do you have a link for that? In the past that source has unpaywalled articles specifically for HN readers so I'm saddened (but not really surprised) they decided to go for the full cashgrab.
Not really sure what you want here - the evidence of those programs being affiliated with YC has been scrubbed from the public web, do you not believe in Occam's Razor or are you waiting to find a quote delivered straight from Garry Tan's mouth on the question before you accept the likely conclusion from all evidence?
edit: either way, I don't have a second source - that article from theinformation is the only active story I've found that specifically names the partners leaving.
theinformation.com was de-walling (?) certain articles for HN when they would make HN's front page and we would specifically ask them. I thought it was a nice fit, but they eventually stopped responding to our emails. I never learned if that was a decision on their part or just churn inside the org (e.g. the person we originally arranged that with left).
We comment on bans when people ask us! In this case, yes, it's banned because it's hardwalled, by which I mean there are no obvious workarounds. If that changes (including if they wanted to go back to the way we did it before - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35146525), we'll happily unban them since their articles tend to be good.
Oh, got it! Thank you for scrounging that up I was specifically looking for mention of that site, no wonder I didn't find it. Makes a ton of sense in general and it's lame we no longer get a special exception to their wall.
